MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  93-81316 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR: 


EDWARDS,  GEORGE 
VAIL 


TITLE: 


THE  ABLATIVE  OF 
QUALITY  AND  THE 

PLACE: 

NEW  YORK 

DA  TE: 

1900 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARCFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


'■"w 


f 877.55 
Z8 
V.2 


Edwards,  George  Vail,  1868-^955 

The  u])Iativo  of  quality  and  tlie  genitive  of  quality  ... 
New  York,  Tlie  Evening  post  job  printing  house,  1900. 


89  I).    23"". 


I  licsis   (I'll.  I..)— Joliiis  Ilnpkiiis  imivcrsiiy. 
Vita. 

Bibliography:  p.  [85j-^7. 

Volume  of  theses. 


1.  Latin  language— Case.        i.  Title. 


Library  of  Congress 
Copyright     1900  A   13504 


PA2191.E3 


1-3149 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: i^Ji.„„„  REDUCTION     RATIO:        /fy 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    ^    IB     HB 

DATE     FILMED:„j^-^Z,i5^2 INITIALS ^fjV 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC   WOQDBRIDGF^ 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100, 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


LLi 


1         2         3        4         5         6         7        8         9        10       11        12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiL 


i    I 


Inches 


Mil 


I   I   I 


1 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


TTT 


m  — 

136     III  3.2 


ill" 

■so 


m 

mil  4.0 


IU.UI± 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


TTT 


ITT 


1 


MPNUFnCTURED   TO   flllM   STflNDflRDS 
BY   PPPLIED   IMAGE,     INC. 


v^    ^ 


The  Ablative  of  Quality 


AND 


The  Genitive  of  Quality 


DISSERTATION 


Presented  for  the  Degree  of  Ph.  D.,  Johns  Hopkins  University 

JUNE,   1899 


BY 


GEORGE    VAIL    EDWARDS 


\' 


NEW    YORK: 

The  Evening  Post  Job  Printing  House,  156  Fulton  Street. 

(Evening  Post  Building.) 
1900. 


Copyright  1900 
BT  George  Vail  Edwards. 


TO 

MINTON    WARREN 

AND 

EDWARD    WOELFFLIN 

in  grateful  recognition 
of  many  kindnesses  greater  than  the  Author  can  ever  hope  to  repay 

this  work  is  inscribed 


>' 


-> 


312503 


CONTENTS. 


V 


V. 


t 


CHAPTER     I. 
Introduction. 

PAGE. 

Attitudes  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Grammarians 9 

Steps  of  Progress  with  Ablatives  since  1867 9 

a.  Delbriick. 

b.  Ebrard. 

c.  Stegman. 

d.  Golling. 

Golling's  Summary 10 

a.  Origin  of  Abl.  Qualitatis. 
^.'Character  at  Earliest  Appearance. 

c.  Distinction  between  Abl.  Qualitatis  and 

Separativus. 

d.  Distinction  between  Abl.  Qualitatis  and 

Abl.  Modi. 

e.  Distinction  between  Abl.  Qualitatis  and 

Abl.  Absolutus. 
/.  Steps  of  Development  for  Adverbial  to 

Adjective  Sociative. 
g.  Fault  of  Delbriick's  Phraseology. 
h.  Fundamental  difference   between   Abl. 

Qual.  and  Gen.  Qualitatis. 
/.   Requirements  for  Further  Progress. 

Progress  with  Genitives 12 

a.  Bell's  View. 

b,  Delbriick's  Suggestions. 

Scope  of  Present  Work '  '3 

Some  Results ^3 

a.  The    Historical    Development    of    the 

Construction. 

b.  Traces  of  Greek  Influence. 

c.  Changes  in  the  Meaning  of  Words. 


) 


CHAPTER  II. 
Influence  of  Form. 

PAGE. 

A  Genitive  vis  is  Wanting i6 

Faciei  and  Speciei  Avoided  i6 

a.  Faciei  Etymologically  Uncertain. 

b.  Forma  Contrasted. 

c.  Speciei  Uncertain. 

d.  Other  Nouns  of  5th  Decl. 

Genitive  pans  avoided 27 

Genitives  of  Adjectives  in  is  Comparatively  Rare 30 

The  Rhyme  orum-orum 35 

Effect  of  Hexameter 39 

a,  Corpore. 

b.  Pondere. 


CHAPTER    III. 

Ablative  and  Genitive  Side  by  Side. 

General  Remarks 46 

Special  Instances: 

1.  Plant.  Vid.  Frag,  v:    42 48 

2.  Ter.  Adel.  441 49 

3.  Cic.  Verr.  5,30 49 

4.  Verr.  4i  118 50 

5.  DeDiv.         2,88 51 

6.  Arch.  31 51 

7.  Fam.  1,7,11 52 

8.  Q.  Fr.  2,9,4 53 

9.  I^e  Leg.        3,  45 54 

10.  Brut.  237 55 

11.  Fam.  4,8,1 57 

12.  N.D.  2,48 58 

13.  Phil-  2,13 59 

14.  Att.  14,14,2 59 

15.  Cses.  B.  G.  7,39 60 

16.  Nep.  Dat.  3,  i 60 

17.  Sail.  Hist.  2,16 61 

18.  Liv.  X,  II,  8 63 


19 

20 

21 
22 

23 

24 

25 
26 

27 

28 
29 

30 
31 
32 

ZZ 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 
40 

41 
42 

43 

44 

45 
46 

47 
48 

49 
50 
51 
52 

53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 


Val.  Max. 
Plin. 


Tac. 


page 

6,  22,  7 63 

27,  19,  8 64 

30,  4,  1 64 

31,  21,  6 65 

38,  24,  2 65 

I,  7,  7 65 

N.  H.             7,24 66 

II,  274 66 

12,  46 66 

12,  56 66 

25,  74 66 

25,  no 66 

27,  44 66 

27,  83 66 

27,  115 66 

27,  118 dd 

27,  122 67 

31,  47 67 

21,  23 68 

12,  47 68 

12,  56 68 

21,  25 68 

19,  127 69 

21,  154 69 

26,  37 69 

27,125 69 

10,  8 69 

9,  54 70 

18,  37 70 

8,  214 71 

Hist.               I,  14 71 

2,64 71 

4,  15 71 

Ann.              4,29 72 

6,5 73 

4,61 73 

'                     6,15 73 

6,31 73 

5,  1 74 

12,  2 74 

13,54 74 


6o. 

6i.  Fronto 

62.  Gellius. 

64. 

65. 
66. 

67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

71.  S.  H.  A. 

72. 

73. 

74. 

75.  Firm.  Mat. 

76. 

77- 

78.  Aur.  Vict. 

79.  Pallad. 
80. 

81. 
82. 

83. 
84. 

85. 
86. 

87. 

88. 

89.  Scr.  Phys. 

90. 

91- 
92. 

93. 
94. 

95- 
96. 

97. 
98. 

99. 
100. 


PAGE 

15,38 74 

Ad  M.  Caes.  2,  5 75 

I,  15,  9 75 

3,  16,  4 76 

9,4,6 76 

9,4,  9 76 

14,  2,  6 76 

17,  9,  7 77 

17,  19,  3 77 

19,  9,  1 77 

19,  9,  2 77 

Hadr.            10,  6 78 

Ant.  Pi.           2,  1 78 

Pesc.                6,5 79 

Tyr.             30,15 79 

3,  3,  10 79 

3,  10,  9 79 

4,  19,  5 79 

Cses.                   18 80 

3,  26,  1 80 

4,  II,  2 80 

4,  II,  4 80 

4,  II,  5 80 

4,  14,  I 80 

4,  14,  3 80 

7,  7,  7 81 

8,  4  2 81 

12,  13,  7 81 

12,  13,  7 81 

Pol.  p.        188,  21  (Foerst) 82 

238,  15 82 

272,  3 82 

Anon.              4,  5  (F.  Vol.  II.) 83 

4,92 83 

4,  94 83 

4,  107 83 

4,  110 ^Z 

4,124 83 

4,  130 83 

Pseud.  Pol.  5  A,i4 84 

Bart.              39,9 84 


i-. 


> 


CHAPTER  L 


INTRODUCTION- 

Since  the  days  of  Priscian  the  attention  of  grammarians  has  been 
drawn  by  the  apparent  coincidence  of  function  between  the 
ablative  and  the  genitive  in  phrases  such  as  magna  virtute  vir  and 
magnce  virtutis  vir.  The  ancient  grammarians  cared  less  for  reasons 
than  for  facts,  and  so  Priscian  (III  Keil,  221,  10;  214,  7;  360,  i) 
is  content  to  observe  the  occurrence  of  these  expressions  without 
deeper  explanation  than  is  implied  in  his  comparison  of  them  with 
the  Greek  genitives  like  iAEyd\i-/>    aftertf^  avffp. 

The  modern  grammarians,  on  the  other  hand,  have  sought  to 
solve  many  questions  about  these  constructions,  such  as  their 
origin,  their  primitive  nature,  the  limitations  appearing  in  the  use 
of  each,  the  extent  of  their  difference  or  of  their  equivalence  with 
one  another;  but  the  success  of  these  efforts  has  not  been  such  as  to 
yield  a  concise  and  accurate  expression  of  the  whole  truth.  Indeed 
the  newest  American  school  grammars — for  instance,  Lane's — seem 
driven  back  fairly  to  the  ancient  standpoint,  the  mere  statement  of 
the  most  obvious  fact. 

Notwithstanding  this  failure  to  reach  unanimity  upon  all  points, 
the  past  century  has  brought  an  advance  in  our  knowledge  of  the 
constructions  before  us.  So  long  as  we  designated  the  two  construc- 
tions by  a  common  adjective,  qualitatis^  we  had  in  the  very  name  a 
source  of  confusion  to  our  ideas,  which  was  in  no  wise  removed 
when  Madvig  (Gram.  §  287)  applied  the  new  titles  "  der  beschrei- 
bende  Genetiv,  der  beschreibende  Ablativ, "  to  the  old  constructions. 
If  there  is  really  a  fundamental  difference  between  these  two 
cases,  then  we  may  have  a  gain  still  to  make  through  a  distinction 
in  names,  just  as  in  the  case  of  two  other  constructions  bearing  a 
common  appellation  we  have  made  a  gain  recently  by  distinguish- 
ing them  as  the  ablative  of  price  and  the  genitive  of  value  (cf. 
Archiv.  IX.  10 1,  ff.). 

A  great  step  in  the  advance  toward  a  perception  of  the  funda- 
mental nature  of  the  Ablative  of  Quality  was  taken  with  Delbriick's 
dissertation   *'Ablativus  Localis  Instrumentalis "  (Berl.,  1867),  in 


lO 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


II 


which  the  ablative  was  distinguished  as  a  compound  case  made  up 
of  three  elements,  a  separativus,  a  locativus  and  an  instrumentalis, 
the  last,  in  turn,  composed  of  two  categories;  first,  ''der  sociative 
instrumentalis";  second,  **der  instrumentalis  des  Mittels." 

This  step  brought  a  new  point  of  view,  and  to  make  it  fruitful 
it  was  necessary  to  consider  next  some  large  collection  of  examples. 
Ebrard  took  up  this  task  in  his  dissertation,  '^De  Ablativi  Locativi 
Instrumentalis  .  .  .  Usu,"  discussing  a  collection  of  instances  from 
Plautus  and  the  early  Latin,  which  is  large,  though  for  Plautus  very 
far  from  complete.  Next  followed  Stegmann  (Neue  Jahrb.,  132,  p. 
243  if.,  &  136  p.  252  ff.)  with  a  more  exhaustive  collection  of  the 
examples  from  Caesar  and  Cicero,  except  the  letters.  Shortly  after  Steg- 
mann came  Golling's  treatise  in  ''Gymnasium  "  (Vol.  6,  Nos.  i  &  2), 
which  is  the  broadest  discussion  of  the  Ablative  of  Quality  that  has 
yet  appeared.  The  main  points  of  Golling's  discusssion  are  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  warrant  their  recapitulation  here. 

To  Golling  it  appears,  first,  that  the  Ablative  of  Quality  has  its 
origin  in  what  Delbriick  calls  ''der  sociative  instrumentalis";  second, 
its  character  as  it  first  appears  in  Latin  is  distinctly  that  of  sociativus. 
This  does  not  overlook  the  fact  that  in  some  instances  the  idea  of 
the  separativus  lies  very  close  at  hand;  for  instance,  with  the  ablative 
of  quality  summo  getter e  esse  compare  the  expression  summogenere 
gnatus  esse. 

Another  distinction,  not  always  easily  drawn,  is  that  between 
the  Ablative  of  Quality  and  the  Ablative  of  Manner,  because  the 
accompaniment  of  a  subject  in  action  very  often  may  be  felt  as 
an  accompaniment  of  the  action;  thus,  for  instance,  Tac.  Germ.  43, 
praesidet  sacerdos  muliebri  ornatu  is  not  easy  to  classify.  Golling's 
distinction  here  is  that  this  ablative  remains  an  Ablative  of  Quality  only 
so  long  as  its  definite  connection  with  the  subject  is  felt;  but  once 
having  granted  that,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  deny  the  qualitative 
character  of  the  ablative  in  order  to  recognize  the  modal  force  which 
it  has  also. 

The  qualitative  ablative  includes,  further,  many  expressions 
which  might  be  looked  upon  fi-om  another  point  of  view  as  Ablative 
Absolutes,  of  which  Golling  gives  abundant  illustrations;  for  in- 
stance, Caes.  B.  G.  5,  14,  3:  Brittani  sunt  capillo  promisso  atque 
omni  parte  corporis  rasa  praeter  caput  et  labrum  superius;  or  Plant. 
Capt  789:  conlecto  quidem  est  pallio. 


> 


Concerning  the  steps  of  development  by  which  from  an  original 
adverbial  sociative  the  ablativus  qualitatis  (an  adjective  sociative) 
was  reached,  Golling  adopts  the  view  in  which  Kriiger  has  pre- 
ceded Delbriick,  that  out  of  such  expressions  as  legiones  profectcB 
sunt  alacri  animo,  or  pugnare  cequo  fronte,  arose  pugnatio  cBquo 
fronte,  or  legiones  sunt  alacri  animo,  whence  legiones  alacri  animo, 
Golling  has  not  fallen  upon  the  unfortunate  example,  serpens  immani 
corpore  incedit,  which  Delbruck  has  since  used  for  illustration  of  this 
view,  to  the  misleading  of  Bennett,  who  in  his  Appendix,  §  345, 
follows  Delbriick.  Incedit  is  a  verb  which  Roman  writers  never 
used  with  serpens,  its  action  implying  a  different  motion  from  that 
possible  to  the  snake. 

Neither  does  Golling  adopt  the  phraseology  of  Delbruck,  who, 
in  view  of  the  transient  character  of  most  instances  of  this  ablative 
and  its  contrast  in  that  very  particular  with  the  Genitive  of  Quality, 
cannot  be  credited  with  having  invented  an  illuminating  title  when 
he  named  this  construction   "  der  Instrumentalis  der  dauerenden 

Eigenschaft. " 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  difference  between  the  Ablative  of 
Quality  and  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  Golling  favors  the  view  of 
Kriiger  (Gram.,  §  398,  i).  ''Durch  den  Gen.  wird  ein  Gegenstand 
dargestellt  wie  er  (nach  der  Ansicht  des  Redenden)  ist,  durch  den 
Ablativ,  wie  er  sich  zeigt, "  ' '  Die  Frage  nach  der  Ausbreitung  des 
einen  und  des  anderen  Kasus,"  says  Golling,  '*ist  hiermit  entschie- 
den.  Jedes  Merkmal  eines  Begriffes  kann  als  seine  Begleitung,  in 
welche  er  erscheint,  aufgefasst  werden,  d.  h.  jeder  Gen.  qual.  wird 
im  Allg.  durch  den  Abl.  vertreten  werden  konnen,  dagegen  wird 
umgekehrt  nur  zufallig  hie  und  da,  was  als  begleitendes  Moment 
eines  Begriffes  erscheint,  ein  Merkmal  darstellen."  This  dictum  of 
Kruger's  and  of  Golling's  reads  very  well,  but  it  is  open  to  the  in- 
stant objection  that  every  scholar  may  have  his  own  view  of  what 
the  **  Ansicht  des  Redenden"  was,  and  accordingly  we  may  be  left 
no  nearer  a  solution  of  our  problem  than  we  were  before.  Take, 
for  instance,  Cic.  Fam.,  4,  8,  i,  neque  monere  te  audeo  praestanti 
prudentia  virum  nee  confirmare  maximi  animi  hominem.  Kiihner 
translates,  ' '  Der  du  vorziigliche  Klugheit  zeigst,  aber  maximi  animi 
von  dem  ganzen  charakter,"  thus  agreeing  with  Kruger.  Madvig, 
on  the  other  hand,  declares  that  there  is  no  difference;  agreeing  with 
Zumpt       Draeger  thinks  the   variation   appears   not    **nach    der 


la 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


13 


Ansjcht  des  Redenden, "  but  '  •  nur  der  Abwechslungs  wegen. "  Not- 
withstanding the  difficulties  which  attend  such  a  subjective  interpre- 
tation of  the  difference  between  Ablative  and  Genitive,  it  may  be 
said,  at  least,  that  no  other  distinction  comes  very  much  nearer  to 
meeting  the  facts  of  the  situation;  for  if  we  set  out  on  the  basis  that 
the  Genitive  denotes  m/erna/ qualities,  the  Mztive  externa/,  we  shall 
speedily  fall  through;  and  on  the  basis  that  the  genitive  denotes  the 
Mmanen/  quality,  the  Ablative  the  /ransien/.  we  shall  still  find  con- 
tradiction at  every  period  of  the  language,  from  Plautus  to  Pruden- 
tius. 

If  these  inconsistencies  are  to  receive  an  explanation  it  must  be 
at  the  cost  of  a  much  larger  collection  of  instances  than  any  which 
has  hitherto  been  brought  together.  Golling  sees  in  this  direction 
the  light  of  hope  and  calls  for  an  investigation  of  the  entire  course 
of  this  construction,  -  mit  jener  Vollstandigkeit  wie  sie  Ebrard  fur 
die  Aei teste  Sprache  erreicht  hat. " 

Even  had  we  at  hand  the  complete  collection  of  Ablatives  which 
Golhng   desires,  that  would  not  suffice   for   the  solution   of  our 
problems,  for  with  the  discussion  of  the  Ablative  of  Quality,  that  of 
the  Genitive  of  Quality  goes  hand  in  hand.     For  the  Genitive  not  so 
much  discussion  has  taken  place  as  for  the  Ablative,  nor  is  the  con- 
struction  in  general  so  well  understood.     A.  Bell,  -De  Locativi  in 
Pnsca  Latimtate  Vi  et  Usu"  (Breslau,  1889),  has  sought  to  show  a 
ocative  ongin  for  the  Genitive  of  Quality  ;  his  argument  being  (p. 
49)  that  the  earliest  Genitives  of  Quality  (compounds  ofmodi^  pre^i 
^...m)  were  made  with  the  locative  pronouns,  hic^  illi,  isH^  etc. 
which  aftenvards,  looked  upon  as  genitives,  led  to  the  employmenl 
by  their  side  of  the  real  genitives  huius,  illius^  istius,   etc.     Thus 
beside  istt  modi,  Plaut.  True,  930,  appeared  istius  modi,  PI.  Epid  ' 

rnii'  T     T^''  ^'^^  ^^'  "'''  ^""^  ^"^^^^^"3^  ^^^^Pted,  but  Beirs 
collection  of  examples  is  valuable,  well  supplementing  that  of  Edw. 

Loch,  de  Genetivi  apud  PriscosUsu  (1880).     The  prevailing  view  of 

wi^K^'  /r^  """1'"'  of  Quality  ascribes  it  to  the  possessive, 
with  Kruger  (Gram.,  §  339),  though  Delbriick's  suggestions  (Vergl 
^ynt.,  §  164  and  §  171),  that  the  genitivus  qualitatis  -vielleicht 
nicht  mdogermanisch  ist '' and  -nicht  unwahrscheinlich  sich  nach 
Auflosung  der  alten  Komposita  entwickelt  hat '^  indicate  the  uncer- 
tainty  still  felt  about  its  source. 

It  is  in  the  hope  of  adding  something  of  value  to  both  these 


> 


discussions,  in  the  direction  which  Golling  for  the  Ablative  suggests, 
that  the  present  work  has  been  undertaken.     Where  so  many  of  the 
keenest  scholars  have  so  long  failed  to  find  a  simple,  unexceptionable 
rule  for  distinguishing  these  constructions  it  was  not  hoped  to  dis- 
cover one  now;  but  one  result  at  least  was  certain  to  attend  the 
consideration   of  a   great  collection  of  examples  drawn   from  all 
periods  of  the  literature,  and  that,  an  oversight  of  the  constructions 
in  their  historical  development  such  as  no  one  has  hitherto  enjoyed. 
Following  this  purpose  the  author  has  read  through  Livy,  Velleius, 
both  Senecas,  Tacitus,  Fronto,  Justinus,  Gellius,  Apuleius,  Firmicus 
Maternus,  Palladius  and  the  Scriptores  Physiognomici,   gathering 
thus  the  examples  from  these  writers  of  which  there  have  been  extant 
no  collections  at  all.     By  an  independent  reading  also  the  author 
has  gathered  from   Plautus   and  Terence  double   the   number   of 
examples  cited  by  Ebrard,  several  from  Nepos,  overiooked  by  Lupus, 
all  those  from  Cicero's  letters  and  those  from  Vergil's  ^Eneid. 

The  examples  to  be  cited  from  the  eariy  poets,  from  Cato,  Varro, 
C^sar,  Cicero's  Orations  and  Philosophical  Works,  Sallust,  Catullus, 
Horace,   Tibullus,   Propertius,    Ovid,   Valerius,   Cunius,  Pliny  the 
Elder,   Phsedrus,   Pomponius  Mela,   Petronius,   Statins,   Quintilian, 
Juvenal,    Suetonius,    Granius    Licinianus,    Lactantius,    Eutropius, 
Aurelius  Victor,  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustas,  Ammianus  Marcel- 
linus,  Prudentius  and  others,  have  been  collected  through  the  use  of 
treatises,  special  lexicons  and  indices  verborum,  cross  references  and 
the  contributions  of  friends.     The  total  number  of  instances  thus 
collected  is  considerably  above  three  thousand. 

The  first  result  of  this  investigation  to  become  apparent  was  the 
clear  determination  of  several  steps  in  the  historical  development  of 
the  construction;  a  result  not  unexpected,  and  already  hinted  at  by 
Golling,  Joh.  Miiller  and  others,  but  never  before  so  cleariy  dis- 
played. To  undertake  a  full  discussion  of  this  development;  of 
the  scope  of  each  construction  in  the  rime  of  Plautus,  the  extensions 
introduced  by  Lucrerius  and  Cicero,  the  points  of  development  and 
decay  appearing  in  Livy  and  the  Silver  writers,  and  the  later  con- 
fusion of  types,  would  require  a  trearise.  Suffice  it  here  to  make  a 
brief  statement  of  the  most  obvious  facts  and  then  to  proceed  to  the 
discussion   of  some  results  which   were   not  to  the  same  degree 

anticipated. 

In  eariy  Latin  our  Ablative  was  largely  the  case  for  physical 


>    I   4^ 


14 


ABLATIVE    AND   GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


descriptions  and  held  this  domain  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Genitive,  which,  aside  from  compounds  of  modi,  generis  and  pretii 
was  confined  to  a  few  unusual  and  mostly  figurative  expressions. 
Lucretius  had  new  ideas,  of  a  less  concrete  sort,   to  express  and  he 
used  the  Ablative.     In  Cicero's  time  the  range  of  ideas  to  be  exactly 
expressed  was  greatly  amplified  in  the  direction  of  abstract  qualities, 
and  the  Ablative,  accordingly,  extended  its  function;  but  now  the 
Genitive,    as   the    '*of"   case,    opposed   to   the   Ablative,    as   the 
**with"    case,     seemed     more    fitted   to    the    expression    of    the 
deeper-seated    qualities,    and    Cicero  extended  its  use  to    include 
many  new  expressions,  mostly  of  abstract  qualities,  involving  the 
adjectives  summus,   ?nagnus,  maximus  and  tantus,  and  a  few  others. 
These  developments,  occurring  within  the  long  period  of  Cicero's 
literary  activity,  have  given  to  his  usage  an  apparent  inconsistency 
which  has  had  double  effect  upon  the  opinion  of  grammarians  who 
looked  to  Cicero  as  the  pattern  of  style.     Caesar,  writing  during  a 
more  limited  period,  does  not  show  the  same  inconsistency.     With 
Livy  a  new  force  appears.     The'Genirive  is  left  to  follow  its  own 
extension  within  the  lines  already  drawn,  but  the  Ablative,  as  the 
old-fashioned  case,  gets  gradually  forsaken.     For  the  ideas  which 
the  Ablative  has  expressed  new  adjectives  are  employed,  and  by  the 
time  of  Velleius  and  Valerius  the  abandonment  of  the  Ablative  be- 
came almost  complete.     When  the  reaction  from  this  impulse  set  in 
the  return  was  plainly  to  an  inconsistent  model.     Gellius  chose  to 
express  with  these  constructions  few  ideas  which  had  not  already 
received  the  stamp  of  ablative  or  genitive;  but,  where  at  one  period 
the  Ablative  had  been  used  and  at  a  later  period  the  Genitive  for  very 
similar  ideas,  Gellius  had  free  choice  which  analogy  to  follow,   and 
most  often,  though  not  uniformly,  took  the  Ablarive.     Not  all  the 
later  writers  shared  the  archaistic  tendency  of  Gellius,  but  the  course 
of  the  constructions  remained  much  the  same  until  with  the  writers 
of  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century  the  old  distinctions  were  for- 
gotten and  each  writer  followed  new  ones  for  himself. 

When  we  seek  to  explain  the  instances  collected  as  the  results  of 
the  forces  indicated  above,  namely,  first,  a  logical  development  of 
each  construcdon  on  the  basis  of  its  fundamental  nature,  the  ablative 
being  the  **with"  case,  the  genitive  the  **of"  case;  second,  the 
effect,  through  the  operation  of  analogy,  of  the  development  of  the 
Ablative  so  early,  compared  with  that  of  the  Genitive;  and  third,  the 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF  QUALITY. 


15 


intentional  variation  from  a  preceding  type  of  style  by  the  Silver 
writers  and  again  by  Gellius  and  his  successors,  much  will  become 
clear,  but  we  shall  still  find  ourselves  often  at  a  loss. 

The  general  character  of  the  difference  between  the  cases, 
though  hard  to  state  in  a  form  which  will  always  apply,  is,  never- 
theless, too  clearly  felt  to  be  denied.  Indeed,  the  usage  is  so  regu- 
lar, that  when  apparent  exceptions  occur  we  may  well  inquire  if 
they  be  not  due  to  the  operation  of  some  special  causes  not  yet  fully 
understood. 

A  few  such  causes  suggest  themselves  readily;  for  instance,  we 
should  expect  to  find  some  influence  exerted  through  the  intimacy 
of  the  Romans  with  Greek.  That  the  Latin  Genitive  of  Quality  is  an 
imitation  of  the  Greek,  Brenous,  Les  Hellenismes  dans  la  syntaxe 
Latine,  p.  97,  denies.  Nevertheless,  we  shall  see  that  the  effects  of 
Greek  influence  are  not  altogether  lacking,  in  particular  in  the 
Latin  translations  of  Greek  compounds  with  n6\v-  and  'ff- 

Again,  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  words  may  have  been  of  in- 
fluence. This  is  the  case  with  animo.  In  Plautus  animus  signifies 
chiefly  the  spirits,  and  so  the  common  ablative  phrases  are  bono, 
tranquillo,  quieto,  liquido  animo.  By  Cicero's  time  the  word  had 
gained  in  meaning  ;  and  while  Cicero  kept,  for  the  most  part,  the 
ablative  in  such  combinations  as  cegro,  altiore,  anxio,  angusto,  con- 
sulari,  excelso,  firmo,  forti,  hostili,  ieiuno,  imbecillo,  infirmo,  inhumano, 
mobili,  mansuetOy  magno,  maximo,  parvo,  pravo,  pari,  sapienti,  sim- 
plici,  singulari,  siabili  animo,  yet  when  the  meaning  intended  was 
that  of  a  permanent  characteristic  and  not  of  the  passing  mood  or 
spirits,  the  genitive  (»2tf^«/,  maximi  animi,  cf.  pieyaXdcpvxoSy  ^eyd- 
:^v^05)  was  logically  required  and  often  so  appeared.  That  Terence 
felt  the  beginnings  of  this  change  in  meaning,  we  may  infer  from 
his  phrases  incerto,  virili,  leni,  duro,  comi,  amico,  fideli,  benigno,  per- 
vicaci  animo. 


CHAPTER  n. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  FORM* 

The  first  to  be  considered  of  the  instances  in  which  the  usage  of 
the  qualitatis  constructions  has  been  affected  by  the  limitations  of 
etymological  forms  may  be  the  noun  vis.     The  Ablative  of  Quality 
with  vi  is  frequent  enough,  but  had  a  writer  wished  to  express  an 
idea  for  which  the  genitive  of  this  noun  were  more  precisely  adapted, 
he  would  have  been  met  at  once  with  the  fact  that,  not  only  for  the 
Genitive  of  Quality,  but  for  every  other  construction  of  the  genitive, 
a  form  vis  was  lacking  in  Latin  even  until  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century  A.  D.     Writers  were  accordingly  driven  to  the  disuse  of  the 
genitive  vis  or  to  the  substitution  for  it  of  a  synonymous  adjective, 
or  the  ablative  vi.     The  following  instances  of  vi  appear  : 

Plant.  True,  Arg.  5:  vi  magna  servos  est  ac  trucibus  moribus. 

ball.  Cat.  5  i:  Catilina  fuit  magna  vi  et  animi  et  corporis.  A 
phrase  repeated  in  connection  with  a  difficult  indi- 
vidual by 

Anon.  De  Viris  Illustribus,  ^^',  Mithridates,  magna  vi  animi  et 
corporis. 

Plin.  N.  H.  2,  39:  simili  ratione,  sed  nequaquam  magnitudine 
aut  VI. 

8,  38  excellenti  vi  et  velocitate  uros. 
24,    1 10  purpurea  ...   vis  summa  ad  refrigerandum  est 

II  VIS  dEXv.  vi  VG  ||. 
34,  1 54  squama  acriore  vi  quam  robigo. 

As  the  second  instance  of  the  influence  of  etymological  forms 
we  may  take  the  genitives  of  nouns  of  the  fifth  declension.  For 
the  first  example,  the  genitive  oi fades.  The  form  of  this  genitive 
written  in  modem  texts  \,  faciei^  like  m,  spei^  diei;  but  in  early  Latin 
and  even  in  classical  Latin  the  form  is  not  sure.  In  Neue's  Formen- 
ehre,  pages  375  ff.  are  cited  the  instances  to  show  that  in  the  early 
anguage  the  genitive  of  nouns  of  the  fifth  declension  was  in  -es 
hke  the  nominative,  beside  which  later  appeared  a  genitive  in  -ei 
which  could  be  also  contracted  to-.,  or  contracted  to-/.  Gellius 
(9.14)  IS  one  of  the  witnesses  that  Caesar  preferred  the  form  in-. 
(Caesar  in  libro  de  analogia  secunda  huius  die  et  huius  specie  dicendum 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


17 


putat),   whereas   Claud.   Quadrig.  had   preferred   the   form    in-.j, 
**  huius  faczVj,"  *'  propter  magnitudinem  iz.zies," 

Now,  if  a  Latin  writer  used  the  genitive  form  facies,  it  was  in 
danger  of  being  confused  with  the  nominative  singular,  or  with  the 
nominative  and  accusative  plural.  If  he  used  facie,  then  it  coin- 
cided with  the  ablative.  For  some  reason  facii  never  came  into 
general  use ;  and  the  remaining  form  faciei,  coinciding  with  the 
dative,  was  also,  perhaps  for  that  reason,  not  satisfactory.  How 
long  this  variety  of  forms  persisted  in  Roman  usage  we  cannot  state 
with  precision.  The  regularity  of  modern  texts  in  reading  the 
genitive  faciei  may  possibly  be  due  to  scribes'  corrections  of  forms 
which  the  authors  wrote  in  -es  or  -ie,  but  which  seemed  to  the  scribes 
merely  errors.  Another  possibility  is  that  some  writers  may  have 
used  a  Genitive  of  Quality  with  the  form  facie,  which  the  copyist 
corrected  to  an  Ablative  of  Quality  by  altering  the  case  of  the  ad- 
jective in  agreement,  supposing  the  gen.   facie,  which  the  author 

wrote  to  be  an  ablative. 

These  are  mere  possibilities.     The  examples  show  for  centuries 
no  attempt  at  a  Genitive  of  Quality,  but  only  the  Ablative,  and  that 

very  frequent  from  Plautus  on. 

353    neque  qua  facie  sit  scio. 

399    Qua  facie  voster  Saurea  est  ? 

646    Sed  qua  faciest  tuos  sodalis  Philo- 

crates  t 
547    sat  edepol  concinnast  facie. 
1 1 1 1     Nutrix  qua  sit  facie. 
724    Qua  facie? 

1 2 1 7    Eho  tu,  qua  facie  fuit  .  .  .  ? 
316    Nullum   istac    facie    ut    praedicas 

venisse. 
565    Qua  sunt  facie  ?     Seep. — Scitula. 
1 149    dicito  quid  insit  et  qua  facie. 
1 1 5  5    Qua  facie  sunt  t 

(Not  once  have  we  cuius  sit  faciei. ) 
7,   Ribb,  254  facie  procera  virum. 
230    (virginem)  Facie  honesta. 
473    Quam    liberali   facie   quam   aetate 

integra. 
682    (ille  erat)  Honesta  facie  et  liberali. 
441    cadaverosa  facie. 
100    virgo  ipsa  facie  egregia. 
I,  67,  qua  facie   .  .  .    (animus)   sit   aut 
ubi  habitet. 


Plant.     Asin. 

Capt. 

Pers. 
Poen. 
Pseud. 

Rud. 


Pacuv.    Niptra  Frg. 
Ter.        Eun. 


Hec. 
Phor. 
Cicero    Tusc. 


i8 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


De  Div. 

Phil. 
Sail.  Jug. 
Nepos     Datames 


Nat.  Deor.    i,   8i,  deos  ea   facie    novimus    qua   pic- 
tores  fictoresque  voluenint. 

1,  53    ei   visum  in    quiete   egregia   facie 
iuvenem. 

2,  41,  Turselius  qua  facie  fuerit. 
6,  decora  facie. 

3,  I,   Thuyn,  hominem   maximi  corporis 
terribilique  facie. 

Note  that  Nepos  was  unable  to  balance  his  first  genitive  corporis 
with  a  second,  because  a  Genitive  of  Quality  from  facies  was  not  in 
use. 

More  remarkable  than  this  unanimity  of  the  classical  writers 
in  the  use  of  facie  is  its  exclusive  use  by  the  writers  of  Silver 
Latin  who  showed  otherwise  the  greatest  preference  for  the  genitive 
construction. 

Liv. 


Val.  Max. 
Phaedr. 

Plin.       Nat.  H. 


i>  55>  5»  caput  humanum  integra  facie  .  .  . 
aperientibus    .     .     .     aperuisse. 
I.  ext.  16,  eximia  facie  puerum. 

3,  4,  7,  formosos    .     .    .     et  turpi  facie 

multos. 
17,  229,   arborem  turpi  facie  relinquunt. 
34,  60,   hie  supra  dicto  facie  quoque  in- 
discreta  similis  fuisse. 
[facile  quoque  et  discreta  B.] 

34,  93  (statua)    sola    eo   habitu   Romse, 
torva  facie, 
Suet,  vita  Verg.     (Donat.)     corpore     statura    grandi,    aquilo 

colore,   facie  rusticana    valetu- 
dine  varia. 
Pronto  Ad  Ant.  i,  3,  pullulos  duos  tarn  simili  facie  sibi. 

2,  6,  pollens  viribus  decora  facie. 
Laudes  Neg.         7,  ut   quaeque    mulier    magis    facie 

freta  est. 
Bell.   Parth.  facie  eximia  lapidem. 

2,  23,  8,  ancillam  facie  baud  illiberali. 
4,  II,  14,   feminam  pulcra  facie. 
7  (6),  8,  2,  facie  incluta  mulierem. 

9,  4,  6,   qua  fuisse  facie  cyclopas  poetae  fe- 
runt. 
I3»  30  (29).  3»  aetate  integra,  feroci  ingenio  facie 

procera  virum. 
[Cited  by  Cell,  from  Pacuvius  Niptra  Trag.  frag.  254,  cf.  above.] 

I3»  30  (29),  6,  Verba  Plauti  haec  sunt .  .  .  qua  sit 

facie  mi  expedi. 


Gell. 


> 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


19 


Apul.      Met. 


15,  12,  2,  pueri  eximia  facie. 
17,  10,  3,  partus  recentes  rudi  esse  facie  et 
imperfecta. 
II,  246,   Nunc  atra  nunc  aurea  facie  sub- 
limis. 

Met  9,  177,  puer  mobili  ac  trepida  facie. 

Polemo  de  physiogn.  55,   facie  magna  oculis  umidis. 

59,  carnosa  fronte,  camosa  facie. 
194,  6,  Foerst.  crinibus  nigris  angustiore 
facie. 

We  see,  then,  that  in  early,  classical  and  Silver  Latin  the  Genitive 
does  not  appear;  for  the  fragment  from  Claudius  Quadrig.  quoted  by 
Gellius  (9,  14)  ''huius  facies"  does  not  offer  us  a  Genitive  of 
Quality,  but  merely  a  form  out  of  construction  for  the  sake  of  illus- 
tration, and  the  conjecture  of  Detlefsen  to  Plin.  N.  Hist,  2,  90, 
specieque  humanse  faciei  effigiem  cannot  be  accepted  in  place  of  the 
MSS.  reading  specie  humana  Dei. 

It  is  when  we  come  to  the  tasteless  writers  of  the  later  time  that 
we  first  find  faciei,  which  does  appear  several  times  in  the  Latin 
translation  of  Bartholomaeus  de  Messana,  and  once  in  Polemo. 

Bart    de  Mess.   35  (Physiogn.  L,  p.  41,  8  Foerst)  tristes.  ob- 
scurae  faciei  sunt. 
40  (Phys.   p.   49,   5  F.)  est  femina    .     .     .     angustioris 

faciei. 
35  (Phys.  p.  37,  6  F.)  parvae  faciei. 
Polemo  35  (Phys.  I,  242,  13  F.)  staturae  erectae,  pulcrae  faciei.  ^ 

Two  objections  may  be  raised  to  the  argument  that  this  exclusion 
of  faciei  is  due  to  its  etymological  form.  First,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  Genitive  was  not  used  because  no  writer  wished  to  express  that 
particular  form  of  this  idea  for  which  he  felt  the  Genitive  would  be 
better  adapted  than  the  Ablative.  Second,  that  the  frequent  and 
exclusive  use  of  the  Ablative  of  Quality  facie  in  the  early  poets  fixed 
its  form  forever,  making  it  felt  as  a  formula,  not  to  be  altered. 

Both  these  objections  are  met  by  a  consideration  of  the  usage  of 
forma.  Forma  and  facies  are  very  similar,  not  only  in  meaning,  but  in 
sound  and  appearance.  Alliteration  helped  to  make  the  ideas  more 
closely  connected  in  the  Latin  mind.  * '  Forma  et  facie  "  says  Naevius, 
Trag.  4.  Plautus,  Miles,  1027  turns  the  same  phrase,  and  Lucretius 
follows,  De  Nat.  5,  1263,  and  5.  11 76.  Quite  as  Shakspeare,  with 
the  same  alliteration,  says,  Hamlet,  3.  i,  **form  and  feature." 


20 


ABLATI^^   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


Moreover,  Plautus  and  Terence  use  forma  and  facie  almost  inter- 
changeably in  corresponding  phrases.  Compare  PI.  Amph.  614 
forma  aetate  item,  Qua  ego  sum  and  Merc.  6^8,  Qua  forma  esse 
aiebant?  with  PI.  Asin.  399  Qua  facie  voster  Saurea  est  ?  and  the  like. 
Compare  Ter.  Andr.  72,  egregia  forma,  with  Ter.  Phorm.  100  facie 
egregia;  Ter.  Eun.  132  forma  honesta,  with  Ter.  Eun.  230  Facie 
honesta;  Ter.  Andr.  122  forma  Honesta  ac  liberali,  with  Eun.  473 
liberali  facie,  and  with  Eun.  682  Honesta  facie  et  liberali. 

If  it  is  true  that  the  idea  of  facies  is  one  which  does  not  readily 
suggest  itself  as  fitted  for  the  genitive  form,  then  forma  also  will  not 
appear  in  the  genitive;  and  if  the  early  prevalence  of  the  ablative 
facie  has  fixed  its  use,  then  the  use  of  forma  will  be  fixed  likewise, 
provided  forma  is  similarly  prevalent  in  the  early  literature.  The 
early  prevalence  of  forma  will  appear  from  the  following  record: 


Plant     Amph.     3 1 6 

614 
Epid.  43 

Men.  PI.     19 
Merc  Arg.    2 

210 
260 


Mil. 


Pers. 

Rud. 
Stich. 


414 
638 
10 
782 
871 
967 
130 
521 
894 
381 


Pacuv.   Medus  (Ribb. 

Ter.       Andr.  72 

119 

122 

428 

Heaut.      523 

Eun.         132 

361 

366 

Lucr.    DeRer.  2,414 


Alia  forma  esse. 

forma.     .     .     Qua  sum. 

forma  lepida  ac  liberali. 

forma  simili. 

scita  forma  mulierem. 

forma  eximia  mulierem. 

forma  eximia  mulierem. 

forma  eximia  mulierem. 

forma  mala. 

Qua  forma. 

forma  regia. 

forma  lepida  mulierem. 

lepida  forma. 

lepida  ac  liberali  forma. 

forma  lepida  ac  liberali. 

forma  expetenda. 

forma  scitula  atque  aetatula. 

forma  eximia. 

231)  (cited  by  Priscian  I.  30,  87). 

Mulier  egregissima  forma. 

egregia  forma. 

Forma  bona. 

forma  Honesta  ac  liberali. 

forma  bona. 

forma  luculenta. 

forma  honesta. 

Estne,  ut  fertur,  forma? 

Summa  forma. 

Simili  forma. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY.  21 

5,  825  variantibus  formis. 
4,  I,  279  deteriora  forma. 
Caes.       B.  G.  3,  U,  5  absimili  forma. 

B.  G.  7,  23,  I  hac  fere  forma  sunt. 

||haec  fere  forma  est  B||. 
Cic.        Rep.      6,  10  ea  forma: 

N.  D.    I,  90  Ante  igitur  humana  forma, 
quam  homines  ea  qua. 
||eaque||  erant  f.  di  immortales. 
I,  107  nee  ea  forma  qua  illi  fuerunt. 
Tim.  1 7  ea  forma. 

Tusc.    5,  61  eximia  forma. 
Verr.  4,  129  eadem     .     .     forma. 
Nepos   Iph.        3,  I  imperatoriaque  forma. 

So  far  the  ablative  exclusively.     Manifestly  the  early  prevalence 
of  forma  is  even  greater  than  that  of  facie;  and  its  use  continues. 


Verg. 
Ovid 


JEn. 
Met. 


Rem. 
Her. 


Liv. 


Petron. 
Plin. 


N.  H. 


> 


Suet. 


Gell. 


Aug. 
Nero 
Titus 


8,  208  forma  superante. 
3,  607  forma  virginea. 

9,  330  forma  notissima. 
15,  130  forma  praestantissima. 

475  forma  proxima. 
3,  35  forma  praestanti. 

26,  50,  I  eximia  forma. 

27,  19,  8  forma  insigni. 
38,  24,  2  forma  eximia. 

105  mirabili  forma. 
7,  184  praecellente  forma. 

10,  51  dilecta  forma. 
19,  65  qua  forma. 
19,  70  qua  forma. 
34,  19  maxima  forma. 

34,  78  eximia  forma. 

35,  17  excellentissima  forma. 
36,   188  forma  terrena. 

79  forma  eximia. 
I  augustiore  forma. 
3  forma  egregia. 
2,  18,  3  forma  liberali. 
5,  8,  9  pari  forma. 

6  (7),  8,  3  forma  liberali. 

7  (6),  8,  3  forma  egregia. 

7  (6),  8,  3  exsuperanti  forma. 
14,  I,  5  quaque  forma. 
14^  4,  2  forma  virginali. 
15,  30,  3  quali  forma. 


22 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


23 


Tac. 


17,  I,  8  quali  forma. 
i7>  i>  8  quali  forma  nasceretur. 
Ann.  2,  39,  10  forma  haud  dissimili. 


Observe,  now,  that  with  the  Augustan  poets  a  Genitive  formae 
begins  to  appear. 

Hor.  Sat.  2,  7,  52  ne  ditior  aut  formae  melioris  meiat  eodem 

(perhaps  melioris  here  metri  causa). 
Ovid,  Trist  3,  14,  19  sunt  quoque  mutatae  ter  quinque  volumina 

formae. 

Then  with  Livy  and  the  Silver  writers  the  use  of  the  Genitive  be- 
comes extended;  for  Valerius,  Seneca,  Curtius,  Justinus  and  Apu- 
leius  totally  excluding  the  Ablative  forma. 


this  construction.  Species  is  closely  related  in  meaning  to  both 
forma  and  facies.  Like  both,  it  is  freely  used  in  the  Ablative  of 
Quality  in  early  Latin.  But  it  differs  in  form  from  forma  and  agrees 
in  form  with  facies,  and  accordingly,  if  our  conclusion  for  facie  is 
true,  specie  also  will  be  used  in  the  Ablative  but  not  in  the  Geni- 
tive of  Quality. 

The  instances  for  specie  follow : 


Plant. 


Liv. 


36,  43,  8 

37.  23,  5 
37,  30,  2 

44,  28,  15 

Val.  Max.  3,  8 

4,  3>  I 

5»  h  7 

9>  2 


22,  46,  5  scuta  eiusdem  formae  (following  the  anal- 
ogy of  eiusmodi). 


Caes. 


Cic. 


Sen.  Dial. 
Curt.  Ruf. 

Petron. 
Stat.  Silv. 
Tac.  Ann. 
Suet. 
Justin. 

Apul. 

Prob.  Val. 


6,  24,  3 

3,  12,  21 

9,  13,  19 

64  7 

3»  4,  26 

4,  3 
Dom.   10 

15,  4,  17 

18,  4,  3 

Met  2,  5 

3,  15 
vita  Pers. 


minoris  formae  naves  erant. 

maioris  formae  navium. 

maximae  formae  naves. 

viginti  eximiae  eqvos  formae. 

Ext.  4  excellentis  formae  puer. 

eximiae  formae  virginem. 

puer  eximiae  formae  liberalis  habitus. 

Ext.    5   filium  liberalis  formae  optimaeque 

spei  puerum. 
adulescens  rarissimae  formae. 
reginas  excellentis  formae. 
cubilia  amplioris  formae. 
ingentis  formae  canis.. 
puerum  egregiae  formae 
formae  indecorie. 
lanceas  novae  formae. 
leo  ingentis  formse. 
insignis  formae  virgine. 
speciosae  formae  iuvenem. 
scitulae  formulae  iuvenem. 
formae  pulchrae. 


Bacch. 

Pers. 
Poen. 

Rud. 
B.  G. 

Rose.  Am. 

Verr. 

Acad. 
Nat.  Deor. 


De  divin. 


Lael. 


Liv. 


K 


We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  absence  of  a  Genitive 
of  Quality  faciei  is  not  due  to  reasons  which  would  apply  also  to 
forma.  It  may  be  due  to  one  reason  which  does  not  apply  to  forma; 
that  is,  to  the  etymological  form  of  the  word.  The  truth  of  this 
conclusion  may  be  tested  by  an  examination  of  the  noun  species  in 


Curt.  Ruf., 
Plin. 


N.  H., 


838  bellan*     videtur     specie 

mulier. 
546  specie  liberalist. 
II 1 3  specie  venusta,  ore  atque 

oculis  pernigris. 
415  specie  lepida  mulierem. 
6,  28,  I  (uri)  sunt  specie  et  colore 
et  figura  tauri. 
63  aliquem    humana  specie 
et  figura. 
4,  129  eadem   specie   ac   forma 
signum. 
2,  66  latiore  specie. 
I,  26  aes  pulcherrima  specie. 

1,  48  hominis  (=  humana) 

specie  deos. 

2,  50  is  Tages  puerili  specie. 

2,  63  **  vidimus  immani  specie 
tortuque       draconum 
terribilem  "  (a  quoted 
hexameter). 
47  (securitas)    specie    qui- 
dem  blanda. 
I,  II,  8  aureas     armillas    magni 
ponderis .  .  .  gemma- 
tosque   magna   specie 
anulos. 
I,  45,  4  bos      miranda     magni- 
tudine  ac  specie. 
I,  7,  4  boves  mira  specie. 
10,  39,  II  vana  specie. 
21,  22,  6  iuvenem  divina  specie. 
40,  29  libros  .   .  .  recentissima 

specie. 
6,  523  specie  singulari  spado. 
2,  90  specieque     humana    dei 
||humanae  faciei  Detlef- 
senll. 


24 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


2,  91  Typhon  ignea  specie. 

2,  93  Tibianim  specie. 

2,  90  hirti  villorum  specie. 
9»  144  specie  vermiculorum. 

10,  8  vulturina  specie. 
10,  114  hirundinum  specie. 
^o>  135  turdorum  specie. 

11,  75  Salis  specie. 

12,  39  Albae  violae  specie. 
13,  114  specie  farris. 

21,  41  versicolori  specie. 

24,  178  hederacia  specie. 
25,  26  specie  ilia  Homerica. 
25,  78  specie  thyrsi. 

25,  167  trixaginis  specie. 
27>  139  peltarum  specie. 

30,  2  specie  salutari. 
33f  H4  Delicia  specie. 
34,  116  vermiculorum  specie. 

36,  20  velata  specie. 

37 f  54  blandissima  specie. 
37»  144  crystallina  specie. 
S7f  149  vitrea  specie. 
37 y  17^  globosa  specie. 
2,  50,  8  invisitata  specie. 
4,  3»  S  ea  prima  specie  forma. 

4,  S^y  5  maiore    quam     humana 
specie. 

5,  6,  13  lacus     inmenso     ambitu 
specie  maris. 

5,  II,  18  tunes  .  .  .  mira  specie. 
25*  5  classis  egregia  specie. 
30  specie  canitieque  pulchra. 

13.  30  (29)  6  Quotes  Plaut  Pcen.  11 13 
specie  venusta. 

14,  2,  12,  specie  tenui  parvaque. 
4,  S$  gratissima  specie. 

II,  241  multiformi  specie. 

1 1,  244  catamiti  pastoris  specie. 

Like  facie,  specie  has  only  the  ablative  until  as  late  as  Palladius, 
who  furnishes  at  last  a  single  genitive. 

Pall.  3,  9,  3  pulchrae  speciei,  grani  callosi  et  siccioris  .  .  .  et 
cutis  tenerioris. 

This  comes  too  late  to  hinder  the  conclusion  that  good  stylists 
avoided  faciei  and  speciei  because  of  their  form. 


Tac. 


Hist. 


Suet. 
Cell. 


Apul. 


Agric. 
Claud. 


^ 


Met. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


25 


Other  nouns  of  the  fifth  declension  aid  little  in  illustrating  this 
influence  of  etymological  form. 

Effigies  and  caniiies  are  too  rare,  though  always  in  the  ablative. 

Plin.  N.  H.,  9,  54,  scorpionis  effigie  aranei  magnitudinis. 
Tac.  Hist,  2,  3,  II,  Simulacrum  deae  non  effigie  humana. 
Suet.  Claud.,  30,  specie  canitieque  pulchra. 
Rei  is  exceptional,  since  it  appears  only  in  the  Genitive  in  the 
phrases  nullius  rei,  nulli  rei,  non  bonae  rei,  which  are  of  very  ancient 
use,  and  are  ascribed  by  Bell  to  a  locative  origin.     Plaut.  Stich., 
720;  Cato.  orig.,  frg.  141;  Cell.  XIV,  2,  6;  IX,  2,  6. 

In  the  case  of  spes  and  fides  there  is  a  special  reason  why  the 
objection  to  the  genitive  form  in  -ei  did  not  preclude  its  use.     Take 
first  spes.     The  early  writers  and  Cicero  used  only  the  Ablative. 
Plaut.  Rud.      275  quae  in  locis  nesciis  nescia  spe  sumus. 
Cic.   Att.   6,  I,  23  De  Egnatii  Sidicine  nomine  nee  nulla  nee 
magna  spe  sumus. 
Fam.    I,  7,  II    eximia   spe  summa  virtute  adulescentem 

Ijsummae  virtutis  G.  R.  M'"!! 
Fam.  12,  28,  3  Ego  sum  spe  bona. 

De  Fin.    5,  52  homines  infima  fortuna   nulla  spe  rerum 
gerendarum. 

Sometimes  later  writers  also  use  the  Ablative: 

Liv.  7,  7,  7  primo  stetit  ambigua  spe  pugna. 

7,  27,  7  et  ne  in  muris  quidem  satis  firma  spe   .    .    .    sese 

dedidere 
26,  37,  3  suspensa  omnia  utrisque  erant  integra  spe,  in- 
tegro  metu. 
Tac.  Ann.  i,  31,  2  legiones  .  .  .  magna  spe  fore  ut. 
16,  3,  I  luxuria  inana  spe 
Hist.  I,  12,  10  multi  stulta  spe. 
Gell.  13,  5,  I  spe  vitae  tenui  fuit. 

Now  observe  that  regularly  the  spes  expressed  with  this  ablative 
is  the  hope  which  the  subject  feels  ;  not  the  hope  which  the  subject 
awakens.  The  second  of  these  meanings  (which  Harper's  Diction- 
ary wrongly  confines  to  the  poets  and  post  Augustan  prose  writers), 
is  objectively  distinct  from  the  first,  and  it  is  in  recognition  of  this 
distinction  that  Caesar  began  to  express  the  second  meaning  with  the 
Genitive  of  Quality: 

Caes.  B.  G.  7,  63,  9  inviti  summae  spei  adulescentes  Eporedorix 
et  Viridomarus  Vercingetori  parent.  (These  are  not 
youths  who  felt  very  great  hope:  but  youths  of  very 
great  promise. ) 


26 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY, 


B.  C.  3,  1 6,  3  ne  res  maximae  spei  maximaeque  utilitatis 
eius  iracundia  impedirentur. 
Hirtius     B.   G.   8,    8,    2  Singularis    enim    virtutis    veterrimas 
legiones  VII,  VIII,  IX,  habebat,  summae  spei  delec- 
taeque  juventutis  XL 

Matius  writing  to  Cic.  44  B.  C.  perceives  the  same  distinction. 

Cic.  Fam.  11,  28,  6  et  optimae  spei  adulescenti. 
Of  course,  the  Silver  writers  use  the  genitive  form; 

Val.  Max  9,  2,  ext.  5  liberalis  formoe,  optimaeque  spei  puerum. 
Sen.  Cont.  i,  6,  i  bonae  spei  uxor,  bonae  spei  nurus 
I,  6,  exc.  6  Bonae  spei  uxor,  bona3  spei  nurus. 
Sen.  Dial.  4.  24,  3  adulescens  rarissimae  formae  in  tam  magna 

feminarum  turba  viros  corrumpentium  nullius  se  spei 

praebuit. 

And  thus  we  come  to 

Petron.  117  iuvenem  ingentis  eloquentiae  et  spei. 
and  Plin,  N.  H.  18,  283  nee  patitur  ratio  naturae  quicquam  in  satis 

ante  diem  spei  esse  certae  . 
31,  48  promittit     .     .     .     optimas  speique  certissimce. 

Thus  the  Ablative  expresses  the  literal  idea  of  the  quality, 
while  for  the  derived  idea  the  genitive  seems  needed;  and  because 
of  this  need  the  formal  objection  to  a  fifth  declension  genitive  has 
been  overlooked. 

Fides  shows  a  similar  distinction  in  meanings.  From  the  litieral 
fides,  *' trust,"  which  the  subject  feels,  there  is  derived  a  fides, 
''trustworthiness,' which  the  subject  inspires,  and  if  fides  follows  the 
analogy  of  spes  we  shall  expect  to  find  a  genitive  fidei  appearing, 
after  Cicero,  to  express  this  derived  idea  of  trustworthiness.  This 
expectation  is  met  by  the  instances. 

The  early  writers  and  Cicero  used  the  Ablative,  and  the  Ablative 
only. 

Plaut.  Aul.  213  Quid  fide?     E.-Bona. 

Bacc.  542  Lingua  factiosi,  .  .  .   sublesta  fide. 
Ter.  Adel.  161  ut  usquam  fuit  fide  quisquam  optuma. 

442  (civium)  antiqua  virtute  ac  fide. 
Cic.  Fam.  i,  7,  2  ;  singulari  fide. 

And  likewise  Fam.  I3>  21,  2  ;   15,  4,  5  ;  Sull.  58;  de  Rep. 

3,  27- 
Fam.  I,  7,  2  qua  fide;  and  likewise  Fam.  3,  9,  i;  Flacc. 

89;  Clu.  47. 
Best  20  incredibili  fide  ;  and  so  Mil.  91. 


^ 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


27 


Sull.  42  Summa  fide;  and  so  de  Rep.  3,  27. 

Verr.  2,  2,  2,  ea  fide. 

Font.  31  quali  fide. 

Font.  23  quanta  fide. 

Fam.  I,  5,  4  fide  maiore. 

Fam.  14,  II  ista  fide. 
Nep.  Iph.  3,  2  bonus  vero  civis  fideque  magna. 

Eum.  I,  5  fide  cognita. 
With  Livy  came  in  the  Genitive. 
Liv.  2,  21,  3  quia  collega  dubiae  fidei  fuerit. 

44,  35,  10  notae  et  fidei  iam  sibi  et  prudentiae  homines. 
Val.  Max.  3,  8,  Ext.  4  efficacis  operae  forensis,  fidei  non  latentis 

Athenis  Ephialtes. 
Sen.  Cont.  i  Praef.  3  memoria    .    .    .    solebat  bonae  fidei  esse. 
Tac.  Ann,  i,  41,  6   Treveros  externae   fidei    ||externam   fidem 

Nipp.|| 
Hist.  3,  5,  12  incorruptae  erga  Vitellium  fidei. 

Justin.  (Trogus)  4,  2,  5  spectatae  fidei  servo. 

8,  3,  I  melioris  fidei  adversus  socios. 

8,  5,  4  pactio  eius  fidei  fuit  cuius  ante  fuerat. 

9,  8,  19  soUertiae  pater  maioris,  hie  fidei. 
II,  I,  6  fidei  dubiae  et  mentis  infidae. 

Cell.  I,  7,  I  libro  spectatae  fidei. 

13,  31  (30),  6  librum  veterem  fidei  spectatae. 

14,  2,  5  virum     .     .     expertae  fidei. 

18,  5,  II  ut  non  turbidse  fidei  nee  ambiguae,  sed  ut  pura? 

liquentisque  esset. 
18,  9,  6  Illic  igitur  aetatis  et  fidei  magnae  libro  credo. 
Justin.  Inst.  4,  i,  15  bonae  fidei  emptori. 

When  we  find  only  two  instances  of  the  Ablative  fide=  ''trust- 
worthiness "  after  Cicero,  we  may  regard  them  as  due  to  early  in- 
fluence, as  obviously  is  the  case  with  the  second  example. 

Tac.  Ann.  12,41  etiam  libertorum  si  quis  incorrupta  fide,  de- 

pellitur. 
Cell.   12,  4,    I  Descriptum  definitumque  est  a  Quinto  Ennio 

.     .     qua  fide  amicum  esse. 

A  third  instance  of  the  influence  of  Etymological  form  appears 
in  the  use  of  the  adjective  par,  paris. 

For  some  reason  only  the  Ablative  of  this  adjective  appears ; 
unless  we  accept  with  H.  Peter  (S.  H.  A.  Lpz.,  1884),  the  emenda- 
tion of  Salmasius  and  read,  Capitol.  Ver.  i  in  simili  ac  paris  maies- 
tatis  imperio,  where  the  older  editors  following  the  codex  Palatinus 
and  the  Bambergensis  read  pari.     This  single  exception,  occurring 


28 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


SO  late,  would  be,  if  admitted,  of  slight  importance  to  our  considera- 
tion ;  for  the  avoidance  of  the  genitive  pans  by  good  stylists  would 
still  remain  clear  from  a  citation  of  the  instances. 


Plaut. 
Cic 


Caes. 

Nep. 


Catull. 

Prop. 

Liv. 


Tac.      Hist. 


Ann. 


Bacc.  II 08  pari  fortuna,    aetate   ut   sumus    (sc. 

pari),  utimur. 
Fam.       15,  4,  10  pari  scelere  et  audacia. 
Clu.  107  Heius,  pari  integritate  et  prudentia. 

197  Marucini  pari  dignitate. 
Sull.  36  eos  pari  calamitate  esse. 

Phil.  3,  25  civis  egregius,  parique  innocentia  M. 

Vehilius. 
7,  6  non    quin   pari  virtute  et  voluntate 
alii  fuerint 
II,  19  cum  pari  dignitate  simus. 
2,  37  pari  animo  inexercitatum  militem. 
I,  95  si  quis  pari  fuerit  ingenio. 
71  pari  gloria  debent  esse. 
6  (Gell.  I,  6,   16)  cum  causa  pari  col- 
legae  essent  non  modo  invidia  pari 
non  erant. 
7,  39  Viridomarus,  pari  aetate  et  gratia. 
I,  25  alias  pari  magnitudine  rates. 

4,  2  alterum  librum  pari  magnitudine. 

2,  I  pari  se  virtute  praebuit. 

3,  5  pari  imperio  esse. 
7,  5  pari  diligentia  se  praebuit. 

5,  3  pari  ac  dictatorem  imperio. 
19,  2  principes  dignitate  pari. 

28,  II  pari  fuistis  casu. 
3>  9>  3S  (4,  8,  38)  proeha  clade  pari. 
3,  51,  9  pari  potestate. 
3,  70,  I  cum  consules  essent  pari  potestate. 
23,  26,  II  velocitate  pari,  robore  animi  praestanti. 
26,  49,  13  nobilitate  pari. 
37,  40,  8  pari  numero  Cretenses. 

1,  15  irater  pari  nobilitate. 

2,  64  pari  probitate  mater. 

3,  49  pari  innocentia  agebat. 

1,  13  promptum,    artibus  egregiis  et   pari 
fama. 

2,  60  qui  pari  virtute  fuerint 
6,  20  pari  habitu. 
13,  8  effigiem  pari  magnitudine. 

15,  32  spectacula  pari  magnificentia. 
15,  56  Scaevinus  pari  inbecillitate. 


Tusc. 
de  Orat. 
Top. 
de  Rep. 


B.  G. 
B.  C. 
Lys. 
Dat. 

Hann. 

Att. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


29 


Suet.    Cal. 
Gell. 


8  infans  nomine  pari. 
5,  8,  9  (tuba  et  lituus  )  pari  forma. 
17,  9,  7  surculi  pari  crassamento  eiusdemque 
longitudinis. 


Observe  that  in  the  last  example  Gellius  would  have  been  kept 
from  a  symmetrical  use  of  two  Genitives  of  Quality,  had  he  desired 
such  symmetry,  by  the  lack  of  a  genitive  paris. 

If  we  add  here  the  instances  of  dispar  we  shall  have  still  a  clear 
record  of  only  the  Ablative. 

Liv.  33,  3,  10  Gortynii  haut  dispari  armatu. 
Tac.  Hist.  4,  68  dispari  animo. 

Ann.  6  (5),  10  iuvenis  haut  dispari  aetate. 

The  genitive  paris  is  very  frequent  in  the  Arithmetic  of  Boetius, 
for  instance,  i,  5  paris  numeri  definitio,  but  this  is  in  the  6th  cen- 
tury, so  late  that  for  our  construction  it  can  have  no  significance. 

When  we  come  to  inquire  the  reason  for  this  exclusive  use  of  pari 
we  hit  at  once  upon  the  suggestion  that  it  may  be  due,  as  in  the  case 
of  facie  and  specie,  to  a  peculiarity  of  etymological  form.  The 
genitive  form  paris,  not  to  mention  its  orthographical  identity  with 
the  name  of  the  hero  Paris  and  the  second  person  singular  indica- 
tive of  pario,  coincides  in  form  with  the  feminine  nom.  sing,  paris 
and  the  ace.  plural  paris  (cf.  Neue)  and  for  this  reason  it  may  have 
been  avoided. 

A  different  reason  is  implied  in  Lane's  remark  (Gram.,  §  1240) 
'*  A  substantive  expressing  quality  with  aequus,  par,  similis,  or  dis- 
similis  in  agreement,  is  put,  not  in  the  genirive,  but  in  the  ablative, 
by  Cicero,  Caesar,  Nepos  and  Livy. " 

These  adjectives  have  at  bottom  a  common  idea,  and  our  in- 
ference is  that  on  account  of  this  idea  they  are  not  adapted  for  use 
in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  and  hence  do  not  appear.  Such  a  view  is 
not  of  itself  unreasonable  and  is  supported  by  the  circumstance  that, 
not  only  in  the  authors  named,  but  in  all  the  literature,  so  far  as  the 
present  collection  of  instances  covers,  no  example  of  any  of  those 
adjectives  in  the  Genitive  has  been  found  ;  excepting  only  similis, 
which  occurs  in  Palladius.  On  the  other  hand,  the  force  of  this  in- 
ference is  weakened  by  the  fact  that  all  the  adjectives  named  are  of 
the  same  termination  in  the  Genitive  except  aequus,  whose  occurrence 
is  in  good  Latin  exceedingly  rare,  Plaut.  having  three  times  aequo 


30 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


31 


animo  adeste ;  Cicero,  aequo  animo  once.  iEquus  is  frequent  in 
ecclesiastical  Latin  =  bono  animo,  and  occurs  twice  in  Pseudo  Polemo 
Foerst.  154  and  155  aequa  [media]  magnitudine,  but  this  does  not 
affect  our  argument.  Perhaps  we  should  have  drawn  a  different 
inference  from  Lane's  remark  about  aequus,  par,  similis,  if  he  had 
added,  what  seems  to  be  equally  true,  that  other  adjectives  not  put 
in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  are  muliebris,  incredibilis,  horribilis, 
terribilis,  trucis,  fidelis,  comis,  lenis,  incolumis,  qualis  and  some 
others  in  -is.  Surely  with  this  list  before  us  the  suggestion  aroused 
by  the  case  of  par  will  return  with  renewed  force.  All  these  adjec- 
tives in  -is,  -is,  -e  have  a  common  form  for  gen.  sing. ,  ace.  pi. ,  fem. 
nom.  sing,  and  masc.  nom.  sing,  as  well,  and  if  the  genitive  pans 
has  been  avoided  through  the  uncertainty  of  its  form,  then  every 
genitive  of  an  adjective  in  -is  will  be  avoided,  and  none  will  appear 
except  for  a  special  reason. 

The  great  number  of  such  adjectives  in  use  gives  an  opportunity 
to  test  on  a  large  scale  the  truth  of  our  supposition. 

It  is  significant,  therefore,  when  in  Caesar  and  Cicero  over  against 
more  than  130  examples  of  adjectives  in  -is  in  the  Ablative  of 
Quality,  only  five  appear  in  the  Genitive  and  each  for  a  special  reason. 
Nor  is  this  significance  removed  by  the  fact  that  the  Ablatives  are  in 
general  four  times  as  frequent  as  the  Genitives  in  Caesar  and  Cicero. 

With  the  writers  of  Silver  Latin  the  general  proportion  of  Abla- 
tives and  Genitives  changed,  some  writers  having  as  many  as  13 
Genitives  to  one  Ablative.  Yet  out  of  all  the  620  Genitives  of 
Quality  in  Silver  Latin,  only  19  have  adjectives  in  -is.  Since  of  the 
Ablatives  of  Quality  one  out  of  every  five  has  its  adjective  in  -is,  it  is 
manifest  that  for  some  reason  the  Genitives  in  -is  have  failed  to  ap- 
pear in  their  due  proportion. 

It  remains  to  show  the  exceptional  character  of  those  Genitives 
in  -is  which  do  appear.  First,  we  may  take  the  adjective  singularis, 
which  occurs  in  the  Ablative  no  less  than  24  times  in  Cicero  alone; 
for  the  orations  and  philosophical  works  see  Merguet;  the  instances 
from  the  letters  are: 

Fam.        I,  7,     2  L,  Racilium  et  fide  et  animo  singulari. 

5,  5,     2  animus  quam  singulari  officio  fuerit 

6,  7,     I  singulari  sum  fato 

10,  29  sunt  singulari  in  te  benevolentia 
13,  21,    2  est  in  patronum  suum  officio  et  fide  singulari 


^H# 


15,  4,  5  vir  cum  benevolentia  et  fide  erga  populum 
Romanum  singulari  tum  praesentia,  magni- 
tudine et  animi  et  consilii 

In  spite  of  the  frequency  of  this  adjective  Cicero  used  singularis 

in  the  Genitive  but  once  (in  a  passage  which  Merguet  overlooks); 

Pro  Sulla  34  maximi  animi  summi  consilii  singularis  constantiae, 

and  there  manifestly  to  accord  with  the  other  Genitives  animi  and 

consilii,  which  Cicero  was  accustomed  to  use  together,  thus: 

Muren.  34  fortissimi  animi  summi  consilii 

Fam.     3,  10,  7  Magni  animi  non  minimi  consilii 
Fam.    10,  19,  I  fortissimi  animi  summique  consilii 
Font.         4 1       summi  consilii  et  maximi  animi 

Caesar  uses  no  instance  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  but  Hirtiusin 
the  8th  book  Bell.  Gall,  uses  it  twice, 

B.  G.     8,  8,  2  singularis  enim  virtutis  veterrimas  legiones  .  .  . 

habebat. 
8,  28,  2  Quintus  Atius  Varus,  praefectus  equitum,  singu- 
laris et  animi  et  prudentiae  vir. 

In  the  first  of  these  instances  the   contradiction  of  Caesar's  own 
usage  (cf.  Bell.  Civ,  3,59,  erant  singulari  virtute  homines,  and  Bell. 
Civ.  3,  91  Crastinus,  vir  singulari  virtute)  is  perhaps  due  to  the  feel- 
ing that  with  the  verb  habebat  the  ablative  would  be  felt  to  limit  that 
verb  as  an  Ablative  of  Manner,  which  the  author  did  not  intend. 

In  the  second  instance,  the  difference  in  meaning  between  the 
Genitive  animi  and  the  Ablative  animo,  which  was  so  strongly  marked 
in  the  writers  preceding  Hirtius,  may  have  influenced  the  choice  of 
this  genitive  form  of  expression.  With  animi  determined,  the  use 
of  singularis  is  not  so  strange  for  a  writer  who  had  already  used  it 
once,  and  who  seems  not  to  have  felt  the  objection  to  its  use  so 
clearly  as  did  his  contemporaries. 

A  similar  adjective  is  insignis.  The  usage  of  classical  and  Silver 
Latin  was  limited  to  the  Ablative  of  Quality. 

Cic.     Att.      I,  12,  3  rem  esse  insigni  infamia. 

Liv.  29,  19,  8  puerum  forma  insigni. 

Tac.    Hist.        4,  1 5  Brinno,  claritate  natalium  insigni. 

Ann.        I,  41  ipsa    insigni     fecunditate,    praeclara    pu- 

dicitia. 
2,  73  utrumque  corpore  decoro,  genere  insigni. 


3« 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


33 


6,  31  Smnaces,  insigni  familia  ac  perinde  opibus. 

11,  301s  modesta  iuventa,  corpore  insigni. 

12,  56  ipse  insigni  paludamento. 

The  genitive  was  introduced  by  Justinus,  a  circumstance  which 
has  been  overlooked  by  J.  Benesch,  in  his  treatise  -  De  casuum  ob- 
iquorum  apud  Justinum,  &c."  (Vienna,  1889)  one  section  of  which 
(p.  36  ff.)  he  has  devoted  to  the  Genitive  of  Quality  without  observ- 
ing any  instance  of  insignis. 

Justin.  2    7,    4  Solon,  vir  iustiti^  insignis. 

18,  4,     3  insignis  formae  virgine. 
24,  8,     5  iuvenem  insignis  pulchritudinis. 
41,  5,  10  insignis  virtutis  viro. 

In  the  same  way  some  80  adjectives  might  be  mentioned  each 
appeanng  with  greater  or  less  frequency  in  the  Ablative  of  Qualitv 
but  occurring  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  rarely  or  only  for  special 
cause.  Large  as  is  the  number  of  instances  collected  for  this  investi- 
gation. It  is  not  of  sufficient  completeness  to  warrant  the  statement 
that  any  given  Genitive  never  occurs.  We  must  be  content  with 
asserting  that  no  such  Genitive  has  come  to  light  in  the  course  of 
the  investigation. 

Thus  we  can  say  of  incredibilis  only  that  its  Genitive  is  not  at 
hand,  whereas  the  Ablative  is  frequent; 

For  instance,  of  a  dozen  examples  in  Cicero  take 

frr.m  p  ^'        J"^^*    ^'    ^'  adulesccus  incredibili  virtute; 

irom  L^aesar;   B.  G.    i,  39  qui   ingenti  magnitudine   corporum 

germanos  incredibili  virtute  . 

.        ^  .  esse  praedicabant. 

irom  \en,  2,  99  Tiberius,    ducum  maximus  mira  et 

incredibili  atque  inenarrabili  nic- 
tate. ^ 

A  list  of  other  such  adjectives  has  been  given  at  page  30  to 
which  maybe  added,  difficilis,   dulcis,  ferialis,  grandis,  hilaririn- 
columis,  menarrabilis,    innumerabilis,    mirabilis,    mortalis,  nobilis 
notabihs,  pastoralis,  pedalis,  perennis,  pinguis,  probabalis,  puerilis' 
rega lis  semhs,  stabilis,  talis,  tolerabilis,  triumphalis,  virginalis,  semi^ 
cubitahs,  quincuncialis,  etc. 

Mediocris  occurs  once  in  the  Genitive  and  that  as  early  as  Cicero 
De  Urat.  i,  257  et  ilia  orationis  suae  cum  scriptis  alienis  compa- 
ratio         .  .  non  mediocris  contentionis  est  vel  ad  memoriam  vel  ad 
imitandum. 


^ 


If  we  try  to  substitute  here  the  Ablative,  we  shall  observe  how 
wide  the  Ablative  would  have  come  from  expressing  the  intended 

idea. 

The  use  of  the  Ablative  is  shown  in 


Cic.   Brut.    237 


Murena  mediocri  ingenio,  sed  magno  stu- 
dio rerum  veterum. 

Cses  B   C.  3,  36,  I  mediocri  latitudine  fossam. 

Tac!  Ann.  4,  n,      quis  mediocri  prudentia  nedum  tantis  rebus 

exercitus. 

The  eager  disposition  of  the  Silver  writers  to  forsake  the  Ablative 
of  Quality  and  employ  the  Genitive  has  sometimes  overcome  the 
tendency  to  avoid  the  Genitives  in  -is,  as  is  illustrated  in  the  case  of 
immanis,  whose  use  by  Velleius  i,  12,  4  immanis  magnitudims 
hostem,  stands  in  contrast  with  the  earlier  examples. 

Lucr.  5,  33  immani  corpore  Serpens. 

Verg.  i^n.    3,  427  immani  corpore  pistrix. 
5,  372  Buten,  immani  corpore. 
Cses.  B.  G.     '  4,  1  immani    corporum    magnitudine  homines 
Cic   Top  44  immani  acerbaque  natura. 

de  Div.  2,  63  vidimus  immani  specie  tortuque  draconem. 

For  another  illustration  of  this  same  inclination  we  may  take 
liberalis,  which  appears  always  in  the  Ablative  in  Plautus  and 
Terence. 

PI.    Epid.       43  forma  lepida  ac  liberali  captivam. 
Mil.       967  lepida  ac  liberali  formast. 
Persa     130  forma  lepida  ac  liberali  est. 
546  specie     .     .     .     liberalist. 
Ter.  Andr.    123  erat  forma     .     .     .     liberali. 
Eun.      473  Quam  liberali  facie. 

682  Honesta  facie  et  liberali. 
Hec.      164  liberali  esse  ingenio. 

but  with  Valerius  Maximus  comes  the  Genitive. 

Val   Max.  5,  i,  7  puer  eximiae  formae  et  liberalis  habitus. 
'  9,  2,  Ext.  1 5  liberalis  formae,    optimae  spei  puerum. 

A  different  influence  which  has  operated  to  overcome  this  disin- 
clination to  use  Genitives  in  -is  is  to  be  seen  in  the  case  of  the  adjec- 
tive fortis,  which  appears  regularly  in  the  Ablative;  for  instance, 
Cic.  Sest.  i;  Brut.  330;  Fin.  3,  29;  Verg.  4,  n.  When  we  find  m 
Gell  II,  13,  10  in  tam  fortis  facundiae  viro,  it  requires  but  a 
glance  to  see'that  here  an  ablative  forti  facundia  would  have  been 


34 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


confusing  to  the  construction  after  the  preposition  in.  To  avoid 
this  confusion  the  author  might  have  had  recourse  either  to  an  adjec- 
tive, such  as  facundioso,  or  to  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  and  the  latter 
he  did  employ.     Tenuis  is  perhaps  a  Genitive  of  Quality  in 

Cell.  2,  6,  2  vexasse  putant  verbum  esse  leve  et  tenuis  ac  parvi 

incommodi. 

but  elsewhere  it  appears  only  in  the  Ablative: 

Ter.  Phorm.    pi.  5  fabulas  tenui  esse  oratione  et  scriptura  levi. 
Cic.  Cato  Maj.     35  quam  tenui  valetudine  Africani  filius! 
Sen.  Contr.  i,  i,  8  summissa  et  tenui  voce. 
Plin.  N.   H.  25,  68  centaurium  minutis  foliis,  radice  tenui. 
25,  124  caule  simplici  et  tenui. 
27,  76  radice  tenui,  nigra. 

One  more  adjective  may  be  mentioned;  tristis. 
The  Ablative  is  witnessed  by 

Plant.  Asin.  401,  tristi  fronte. 

Cic.      Quinct         59   natura  tristi  ac  recondita  fuit. 

Sen.      Cont.    2,  4,  3    tristi  vultu. 

Tac.     Ann.     14,  16   tristi  vultu. 

The  Genitive,  on  the  other  hand,  is  found  only  in  Seneca  Rhetor, 
twice  in  Miiller's  text,  in  the  same  section. 


Sen. 
And 


Cont.    I,  3,  3    *'Erat"  inquit  '^praeruptus  locus  et  im- 

mensae  altitudinis  tristis  aspectus." 

again     i,  3,  3    [et  immensae  altitudinis  tristis  aspectus] 

electus  is  potissimum  locus  ut  damnati 
saepius  deiciantur. 

In  the  first  of  these  passages  the  MSS.  do  not  have  the  words 
tristis  aspectus,  which  the  editor  inserts,  following  the  conjecture  of 
Konitzer. 

In  the  second  passage,  however,  where  the  MSS.  do  have  the 
phrase  **et  .  .  .  aspectus,"  Konitzer  regards  the  whole  phrase 
as  an  interpolation  and  it  is  bracketed  accordingly.  So  then  we 
have  authority  for  but  one  tristis,  and  that  either  in  a  questionable 
passage,  following  the  MSS.  reading,  or  in  a  conjectured  reading, 
following  the  editor's. 

But  since  this  is  the  only  instance  of  the  Genitive  tristis  at  hand 
from  any  author;  since,  moreover,  Seneca  elsewhere  uses  the  Abla- 
tive tristi,   and,  finally,  since  out  of  the   88  examples  of  the  Geni- 


ABLATIVE    AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


35 


tive  of  Quality  used  by  Seneca  this  doubtful  or  conjectural  tristis  is 
the  only  one  containing  an  adjective  in  -is,  it  would  seem  as  if 
Konitzer  might  have  done  better  if  after  striking  out  the  doubtful 
tristis  aspectus  he  had  not  inserted  it  in  the  other  place. 

In  the  fifth  place  among  the  influences  upon  usage  which  arise 
from  etymological  form  we  may  consider  the  avoidance  of  the 
rhymes-orum,-orum;-arum,-arum.  It  is  already  well  known  that 
this  influence  has  operated  in  some  other  constructions,  for  in- 
stance, in  Livy,  in  determining  the  choice  between  the  gerund  and 
gerundive  constructions;  thus,  compare  consilium  oppuquandi  Syra- 
cusas  with  consilium  oppugnandarum  Syracusarum;  but  that  it 
has  operated  to  restrict  the  use  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality  has  been 
overlooked  hitherto. 

In  eariy  Larin  the  use  of  the  Genirive  of  Quality,  whether  form- 
ing a  rhyme  or  not,  is  so  rare  that  we  have  no  ground  for  attrib- 
uting the  use  of  the  Ablative  summis  ditiis  in  Plaut.  Capt.  170  and 
Poen.  60  to  an  inclinarion  to  avoid  the  rhyme  of  summarum  diti- 
arum;  nor  should  we  so  attribute  Pseud.  12 18  crassis  suris  or 
Pseud.  852  aquilinis  ungulis.  But  in  the  classical  and  Silver  writers 
the  genitive  plural  is  also  so  rare  that  Kuhner,  Lat.  Gram.,  §  86,  4, 
can  comment  to  Cic  Fam.  4,  8,  i,  and  Rose.  Am.  6,  17  '^sonst  aber 
vermeidet  die  Lateinische  Sprache  von  korperiichen  oder  geistigen 
Eigenschaften  den  Gen.  des  Plurals."  If  the  Genitive  plurals  are 
truly  so  rare  whether  rhyming  or  not,  then  we  should  be  left  with 
no  other  inference  than  that  the  writers  avoided  the  Genitive  plural; 
but  we  have  to  cite  a  considerable  number  of  instances  of  the 
Genitive  of  Quality  in  the  plural  where  the  endings  form  no  rhyme. 
Thus: 

Plaut.  Aul.  325  trium  litterarum  homo. 

Cic.  Brut.         286  multarum  orationum. 

246  multarumque  causarum. 

Here,  observe,  the  rhyme  is  broken 
by  the  change  of  accent  caused  by 
the  insertion  of  que. 
Orat.  85  valentiorum  laterum. 

Tusc.    5,  I,  2  tantarum  virium. 
de  Petit.        9  nullarum  partium. 
Att.       13,  29  multarum  nuptium: 
Sail.  Jug.       85,  10  multarum  imaginum. 

Liv.  28,  20  levium  corporum. 

44,  4  gravium  armorum. 


4 


I 


3"  ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 

And  Livy  has  many  examples  in- 
volving the  noun-forms  annonim, 
navium,  gentium,  aetatum,  ordinum, 
generum  and  amphorarum,  of  which 
those  that  could  form  a  rhyme 
-orum,  -orum,  or  -arum,  -arum  are 
used  only  with  numbers,  which,  of 
course,  do  not  have  those  genitive 
forms ;  as,  for  instance,  novem  an- 
nonim. Duorum  annorum  does  not 
seem  to  occur. 

^^IJ'  2,  93  ingenuarum  virtutum. 

Tac.  Ann.        4,  31  eluctantium  verborum. 

Firm.  Mat.  3>  5^  ^5  tantarum  facultatum. 

Hieron.  Ep.       117,  6  furvarum  vestium. 

117,  8  vestium  sericarum. 

It  is  not  to  be  maintained  that  these  rhymes  were  for  every  con- 
struction totally  avoided.  Landgrafs  citation  of  Rose.  Am.  103; 
Verr.  4,  126;  5,  121;  Mil.  64;  Cat.  i,  7;  Cat.  4,  20;  Mur.  21, 
from  Cicero  alone,  will  show  that  they  now  and  then  occur.  Even 
in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  we  have  from  Cicero  two  instances;  Orator, 
169,  paucorum  colorum,  and  Nat.  Deor.  2,  48  aliarum  formarum; 
but  these  are  exceptional. 

The  commonest  expressions  in  which  these  rhymes  appear  in  the 
Genitive  of  Quality  are  those  which  seem  to  be  translations  of  Greek 
adjectives  compounded  with  noXv .  Here  the  Genitive,  both  in 
singular  and  plural,  is  far  more  frequent  than  the  Ablative.  This 
coincidence  is  remarked  by  Landgraf  (Sex.  Rose,  p.  163),  who  cites 
instances  from  Cicero  and  Horace. 

Cic.        Rose.  Am.  17  plurimarum  palmarum  gladiator 

(cf.  TtoXvaTecprf?) 
Att.  13,  29,  I  Comificia  vetula  sane  et  multarum 

nuptiarum  (cf.  noXvyafio?:.) 
Hor.        Od.  3,  9,  7  multi  Lydia  nominis 

(cf.    TtoXvGDVV^OZ.) 

Other  instances  of  such  Genitives  are  in  the  singular  ; 

Plant.     Vid.  Frg.  (148-9)  cibi  minimi. 

Varro,    R.  R.  2,  11  non  maximi,  minimi  cibi. 

Cic.        Fam.  9>  26,  4  non  multi    cibi    hospitem  accipies 

Sueton.  Galb.  22  cibi  plurimi. 


^*  .* 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


37 


Fronto. 

Hor. 
Cic. 


Sat. 

de  Orat. 
Fam. 


Q.  F. 

Fronto. 
Plant.    Bacc. 

And  in  the  plural ; 


35  multi  cibi. 

(With  all  of  which  compare 

7to\vq)dyo£y  TToXvffiroS.) 
i>  i>  33  niagni  formica  laboris 

(cf.  TtoXv/Aox^o^,) 
I,  257  multi  sudoris. 
2,  13,  I  multi  consili 

(cf.  TToXvcppad?)^.) 
3.  6,  3  magnae  deliberationis. 

(cf.  TtoXvcppovri^.) 
2,  9,  3  multae  artis. 

93  [N]  multi  somni. 
770  magnae  dividiae. 


Cic.       de  Leg.  Agr.   2,  36  via   Herculanea  multarum  delicia- 

rum  et  magnae  pecuniae. 
Fronto.  ad  Am.  2,  1 1  multorum  ramorum. 

Apul.     Met.  10,  25  multarum  palmarum  spectatus  proe- 

liis. 

Aside  from  Genitives  of  Quality  of  this  particular  class,  the  in- 
stances are  very  rare  in  the  writings  of  good  stylists.  If,  now,  the 
later  writers  ceased  to  be  sensitive  to  such  distinctions  and  em- 
ployed the  rhyme  where  previously  it  had  been  avoided,  there  will 
be  no  occasion  for  surprise.  Thus  Firmicus  Maternus  could  write, 
Math. ,  3,  7,  6  magnae  mentis,  magnorum  ac  divinorum  consiliorum 
viros  ;  and  Polemo  (Foerst,  p.  182)  could  write  asinus  deterrio- 
rum  morum,  crocodilus  deterriorum  morum  ;  Balaena  morum  de- 
terriorum  ;  Testudo  morum  deterriorum  &  (p.  184)  Anguilla  mo- 
rum deterriorum  ;  Rana  deterriorum  morum,  &c. 

From  the  use  of  this  last  noun,  mos,  moris,  morum,  the  argu- 
ment before  us  can  be  well  illustrated.     Mos  is  a  noun,  the  idea  of 
which  it  seemed  good  to  Latin  writers  to  express  in  the  Genitive, 
without  exception  in  the  singular.     Thus  : 

Liv.  39,  II  probam  et  antiqui  moris  feminam. 

Veil.         2,  116,  3  vir  antiquissimi  moris 
Tac.  Hist.      I,  14  Piso.  .   moris  antiqui. 
2,  64  mater  antiqui  moris. 
Ann.      I,  35  saevum  id  malique  moris. 

16,  5  severaque  adhuc  et  antiqui  moris. 
Justin.        14,  2,  4  vestis  olim  sui  moris, 


38 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


39 


When,  now,  in  the  plural  we  find 


Plautus,  Capt. 
Most. 


105  antiquis  est  adulescens  moribus. 
708  ut   moribus   sient   (=  quibus   moribus, 
Ebr. ) 

Stich.      105  quibus  matronas  moribus. 
Trin.       284  saeculum  moribus  quibus  siet. 

825  omnes  .  .  avidis  moribus. 
True.  Arg.  5  vi  magna  servos  est  ac  trucibus. 
Ten         Andr.     395  uxorem  his  moribus. 
Cic.  Quinct.    59  omnis  his  moribus. 

Verr.    3,   62  moribus  eisdem. 
Flacc.       26  unis  moribus  vivere. 

we  may  be  reminded  of  the  principle  which  Kiihner  observed  in 
connecrion  with  Cic.  Tusc.  5,  1,2  (Gram.,  §  86,  4)  where  he  says  the 
different  case  **darf  nicht  auffallen,  da  der  sing,  dieses  Wortes  cine 
andere  Bedeutung  hat."  But,  aside  from  such  a  reason  for  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  ablatives  here  we  should  attribute  them  to  the  over- 
whelming preference  of  the  eariier  writers  for  the  Ablative  of  Quality. 
It  is  when  we  come  to  Velleius,  who  used  almost  no  Ablatives  of 
Quality,  but  the  Genitive,  and  who  has  in  the  singular  moris  (cf. 
above),  that  we  are  struck  with  the  use  of  2,  91,  2  diversis  moribus, 
and  not  diversorum  morum.  And  then  Tacitus,  who  wrote  four 
rimes  the  genitive  singular,  has,  Ann.  17,  19,  3  hominem .  .  .  corruptis 
moribus,  and  not  corruptorum  morum.  And  Aurelius  Victor  broke 
the  symmetry  of  his  construction  to  say,  Caes,  18  doctrinae  omnis 
ac  moribus  antiquissimis,  instead  of  morum  antiquissimorum.  The 
Ablative  appears  also  in 

Sail.     Jug.  4,  7  his  moribus. 

Gell.  3,  16,  12  feminam  bonis  atque  honestis  moribus. 

I7>  I9>  3  hominem  corruptis  moribus. 
Firm.  Mat.   3,  2,  20  honestis  moribus. 

3,  3,  10  honestis  moribus. 

3,  7,    8  divinis  moribus. 

3,  10,  9  bonis  consiliis  ac  moribus. 

When,  now,  we  find  in  the  fourth  century  Polemo  with  his  *'  mo- 
rum pravorum"  (Foerst,  p.  17,  4,  8)  and  his  '' difficiliorum  morum  " 
(p.  246,  17)  we  may  attribute  the  difference  in  usage,  not  to  a  difference 
m  the  ideas  to  be  expressed  by  the  Ablative  plural  and  the  Genirive 
plural,  but  to  a  lack  in  Polemo  of  that  taste  which  led  the  eariier 
writers  to  avoid  the  rhyme  -orum,  -orum. 


»       • 


k* 


H 


I 


Sixth  to  be  considered  of  the  influences  of  form  upon  usage  is  that 
arising  from  the  limitations  of  meter,  and  in  particular,  of  the  hex- 
ameter. This  is  an  influence  which  will  be  felt,  not  alone  in  the 
language  of  the  writers  of  hexameter,  but  in  that  also  of  the  Silver 
prose  writers,  who,  as  we  know,  often  adopted  the  phrases  of  the 
Epic  poets  with  out  stopping  to  consider  whether  the  use  of  these 
phrases  had  been  affected  by  considerations  due  purely  to  the  limi- 
tations of  verse. 

If  we  take  a  glance  at  Enn.  Ann.  266  (Miiller)  .  .  .  longi  cupressi 
Stant  rectis  foliis  et  amaro  corpore  buxum,  we  see  that  a  genitive 
corporis  was  not  available  for  the  fifth  foot  of  this  hexameter.  If 
we  observe  Lucretius,  we  find  the  following  array  of  Ablatives: 


I, 
I, 
I, 
I, 
I, 
3> 
5, 
5, 


232  mortali  corpore  quae  sunt. 
242  Ubi,  nulla  forent  aeterno  corpore,  quorum. 
246  Incolumi  remanent  res  corpore,  dum  satis  acris. 
297  .   .   aperto  corpore  qui  sunt. 
488  .  .   soli  do  reperiri  corpore  posse. 
177  .  .   quali  sit  corpore  et  unde. 
'^'^  ,  .   immani  corpore  serpens. 
241  .  .   corpore  nativo  ac  mortalibus  esse  figuris. 

5,  1302  .   .  boves  lucas  turrito  corpore,  tetras. 

6,  100  .   .   condenso  corpore  nubes. 
6,     361  .   .  tam  denso  corpore  nubes. 
6,     936  .   .   quam  raro  corpore  sint  res. 
6,  1036  .  .  raro  sunt  corpore,  et  asr. 

Nearly  every  instance  has  the  Ablative  in  the  fifth  foot,  where 
the  Genitive,  for  metrical  reasons,  would  be  unavailable. 
Observe  next  Vergil's  ^Eneid: 

Praestanti  corpore  nymphae. 
immani  corpore  pistrix. 
Buten  immani  corpore,  qui  se. 
praestanti  corpore  Tumus. 
priestanti  corpore  tauros. 
immani  corpore  Thybris. 
magno  mcerentem  corpore  Nilum. 
candenti  corpore  cycnum. 
fuso  germanum  corpore  vidit. 
10,  345  fidens  primal vo  corpore  clausus. 


I, 

71 

3, 

427 

5, 

372 

7, 

783 

8, 

207 

8, 

330 

8, 

711 

9, 

563 

9, 

722 

And  the  Georgics: 


4,  539  praestanti  corpore  tauros. 
4,  550  praestanti  corpore  tauros. 


40 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


41 


Over  and  over  again  the  Ablative  in  the  fifth  foot  of  the  hexa- 
meter. 

Now,  if  Roman  schoolboys  learned  Vergil  by  heart,  what  limit 
shall  we  set  to  the  influence  of  Vergil's  phrases  upon  later  usage, 
determined  though  those  phrases  may  have  been  for  Vergil  by  purely 
metrical  considerations?  The  general  usage  did  follow  the  form 
fixed  by  the  hexameter.  How  completely  let  the  following  instances 
witness: 


Plant.  Capt 


Poen. 
Cic.      Caea 

Leg.  Agr. 

ad  Quir. 


Nepos  Ages. 
Ovid    Am. 
Met. 
Liv. 


Plin.  N.  H. 


Tac.  Hist. 


Ann. 


Suet.  Aug. 
Tib. 
Calig. 
Claud. 


647  macilento    ore,    naso    acuto,  corpore 

albo,  oculis  nigris; 
I II 2  statura  hau  magna,  corpore  aquilost. 
27  Caesenius  non    tam  auctoritate  gravi 
quam  corpore. 

2,  13  vestitu  obsoletiore,  corpore  inculto  et 
horrido. 

4  qui  numquam  segro  corpore  fuerunt. 
Fam.      II,  27,  I  nondum  satis  firmo  corpore  cum  esset. 
Nat.  Deor.  2,  59  iis  corporibus  sunt  ut. 

8,  I  statura  fuit  humili  et  corpore  exiguo. 
2,  10,  28  forti  corpore  inani  fui. 

3,  44  tantoque  est  corpore  quanto. 
7,  12,  1 1  ad  hoc  iis  corporibus. 

24,  26,  13  tot  armatosaliquotiensintegro  corpore 
evaserunt. 
7,  24  choromandrae  stridoris  horrendi,  hirtis 

corporibus,  oculis  glaucis. 
7,  8 1  corpore  vesco  sed  eximiis  viribus  Tri- 
tanum. 
8,  174  duritia  eximia  pedum  strigoso  corpore. 
2,  32  Germanos  fluxis  corporibus. 

4,  46  producuntur  intecto  corpore. 
4,  77  intecto  corpore,  promptus  inter  tela. 
2,  73  corpore  decoro,  genere  insigni. 
2,  75  Agrippina  corpore  aegro. 
4,  29  Tubero  defecto  corpore: 
6,  46  incertus  animi,  fesso  corpore 

1 1,  36  is  modesta  iuventa,  corpore  insigni. 
14,  17  multi     .     .     trunco  per  vulnera  cor- 
pore. 
15*  34  corpore  detorto. 

80  corpore  traditur  maculoso. 

68  corpore  fuit  amplo  atque  robusto. 

50  fuit     .     .     corpore  enormi. 

30  nam  et  prolixo  nee  exili  corpore  erat. 


I 


Nero  5 1  statura  fuit  prope  iusta,  corpore  macu- 

loso et  faetido. 
Galb.  3  quamquam  brevi  corpore. 

Fronto  ad  M  Caes.  i,  2  valeat  integro,  inlibato,  incolumi  cor- 
pore. 
ad  Ant.  2,  6  salubri  corpore,  velox  patiens  laboris. 

Gell.  3,  I,  II  corpore  esse  vegeto. 

5>  S>  5  (Verg.  ^En.  5,  372)  Buten  immani  cor- 
pore. 
9,  4,  10  corporibus  hirtis. 
I3>  5>  I  corpore  aegro  adfectoque  ac  spe  vitae 

tenui  fuit. 
i9>  7>  3  corpore,  inquit,    pectoreque   undique 
'  obeso. 

^9)  '3j  3  ycc^ov?  vocaverunt  brevi   atque  hu- 
mili corpore  homines. 

And  so  on  to  the  later  writers. 

In  comparison  with   these  Ablatives,   corpore,  the  instances  of 
the  Genitives,  corporis,   are  strikingly  few.     The  first  instance  is 


Nepos  Dat. 


3,  I  hominem  maximi  corporis  terribilique 
facie, 


where  the  genitive  corporis  is  used  to  make  a  distinction  between 
the  derived  meaning  ** bodily  size,"  and  the  common  literal  mean- 
ing *'  the  body,"  which  the  Ablative  so  regularly  expresses. 
Next  comes 

Hor.    Epist.     I,  20,  24  corporis  exigui  praecanum 

where  the  ablative  corpore  would  not  have  fitted  the  verse. 

Then  come  the  Silver  writers,  who,  other  things  being  equal, 
favored  the  Genitive.     Even  they  show  only  a  few  instances: 

Liv.  28,   20,  3  levium  corporum  homines 

4i>     9>  5  puerum  trunci  corporis 
Sen.  Cont.  4,Exc.  2  sacerdos  non  integri  corporis 

Sen.   Dial.  4,  35,  2  senex  infirmi  corporis  est 

Justinus  Praef.  i  rem     magni     animi      et      corp9ris 

(?  operis  ?) 

And  so  is  the  list  exhausted  until  we  come  to  the  writers  of  the 
later  time,  such  as  Palladius,  who,  with  a  peculiarity  of  his  own 
style,  has 

3,  26,  I  vasti  et  ampli  corporis,  sed  rotundi  potius  quam 
longi 


^^  ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 

4,  II,  2  solidi  corporis 

4,  1 1,  5  corporis  longi 

4,  13,  4  et  magni  ventris  et  corporis 

4,  14,  I  magni  corporis 

8,     4,  3  vasti  corporis  et  prolixi 

12,  13,  7  magni  corporis 

12,  13,  7  similis  corporis 

That  such  a  marked  preference  for  the  ablative  corpore  is  not 
without  a  cause  we  are  enritled  to  assume;  and  a  manifest  cause  is 
before  us  in  the  influence  of  the  hexameter.  Let  us  not  fall,  how- 
ever, into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  influence  of  the  hexameter 
must  be  the  only  cause  which  has  operated.  Cicero  and  Nepos  can- 
not owe  their  Ablatives  to  the  study  of  Vergil  in  school;  and  while 
we  might  attribute  their  ablatives  to  the  hexameters  of  Lucretius 
and  Ennius,  if  no  other  source  were  apparent,  we  should  still  be 
forced  to  recognize  a  diff'erent  reason  for  Plautus'  use  of  corpore;  a 
reason  which  lies  upon  the  surface  in  the  eariy  preponderance  of  all 
Ablatives  of  Quality  over  the  Genitives,  owing  to  the  undeveloped 
stage  of  the  genitive  construction. 

In  some  of  the  instances  cited  the  Ablative  will  have  its  ground 
in  still  other  causes;  for  instance,  in  Cic.  Leg.  Agr.  2,  13,  a  Genitive 
corporis  inculti  et  horridi  could  scarcely  have  been  applied  to  such 
a  transitory  quality  as  that  which  the  author  intended  to  describe. 

So  also  Tac.  Hist.  4,  46  (above)  and  many  other  phrases  expres- 
sing transitory  qualities;  cf  those  having  adjectives  a?gro,  fesso, 
trunco,  fluxis,  intecto,  defecto,  valenti,  adfecto,  etc. 

In  Nep.  Ages.  8,  i  it  is  possible  that  corpore  exiguo  is  put  in  the 
Ablative  to  balance  the  Ablative  statura  humili,  which  is  foreordained 
by  its  adjective  humilis  to  be  in  the  Ablative,  this  adjecdve  not  ap- 
pearing in  the  Genitive  of  Quality.  This  possibility  is  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  the  only  time  we  find  the  Genitive  corporis  exigui, 
Hor.  Epist.  I,  20,  24,  it  is  required  by  the  meter. 

In  Plin.  N.  H.  7,  24  the  Ablative,  says  Kiihner  (Gram.  §  86,  4), 
is  due  to  avoidance  of  the  Genitive  plural  of  bodily  or  mental  quali- 
ties. He  does  not  observe  that  the  disuse  of  the  Genitive  plural  may 
be  due  to  avoidance  of  the  rhyme  -orum,  -orum. 

A  further  reason  for  the  appearance  of  corpore  regulariy  in  the 
Ablative  of  Quality  may  be  assumed  in  the  close  similarity  between 
the  idea  of  the  body  itself  and  the  idea  of  the  parts  of  the  body. 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


43 


CI 


Everybody  wrote  the  bodily  parts  in  the  Ablative,  and  why  not  also 
corpore  ? 

Whether  any  of  the  writers  were  conscious  of  imitating  the  Ver- 
gilian  form  when  they  wrote  the  Ablative  corpore  it  is  not  for  us  to 
inquire.  That  the  hexameter  poets  were  free  in  its  use  and  limited 
in  their  use  of  the  Genitive  by  the  requirements  of  their  verse  must  be 
apparent. 

This  evidence  of  a  metrical  influence  upon  the  use  of  corpore  is 
sustained  most  clearly  by  the  situation  with  regard  to  the  use  of 
ponderis,  pondere.  Pondus  stands  in  no  such  relation  to  the  parts 
of  the  body  as  does  corpus.  Neither  is  it  an  external  nor  a 
transient  quality.  Guided,  accordingly,  by  the  character  of  its 
idea,  we  should  look  for  its  occurrence  in  the  Genitive  rather 
than  in  the  Ablative.  Such  was  the  usage  of  Caesar,  one  of  the  most 
correct  writers,  who  has,  B.  G.  2,  29,  3  magni  ponderis  saxa,  and 
B.  G.  7,  22,  5  maximi  ponderis  saxis,  with  never  the  Ablative  pon- 
dere. Servius  may  have  had  some  such  idea  when  he  explained 
Verg.  JEn.  10,  381  magno  pondere  saxum,  with  the  remark  ''hoc 
est;  magni  ponderis,  ut  'aere  cavo  clipeum  '  (^n.  3,  286)  pro  'seris 
cavi;'"  just  as  to  ^n.  i,  71  he  comments  **pr^stanti  autem  cor- 
pore, pro  praestantis  corporis,  ablativum  pro  genitivo."  From 
Cicero  Stegmann  can  quote  but  two  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  ex- 
pressions of  weight  appear  in  the  Genitive,  and  these  both  consist 
of  the  same  phrase,  Cic.  Verr.  2,  4,  32  hydriam  pr^claro  opere  et 
grandi  pondere  and  Nat.  Deor.  3,  83  amiculum  grandi  pondere. 
To  these  may  be  added  two  more  expressions  of  weight  which  Steg- 
mann's  observation  did  not  include;  Att.  10,  i,  i  filius  eodem  apud 
me  pondere,  quo  ille  fuit,  and  Acad.  2,  1 2 1  naturalibus  fieri  aut  fac- 
tum esse  docet  ponderibus  et  motibus.  If  we  add  these,  still  the 
number  is  so  small  that  we  may  regard  the  Ablative  for  expressions 
of  weight  as  exceptional.  Cicero's  use  of  the  Genitive  ponderis  and 
its  natural  and  logical  employment  in  the  pages  of  succeeding  writ- 
ers may  be  observed  from  the  following  instances,  added  to  those 
mentioned  from  Caesar  above. 


Cic. 


Fam.  2,  19,  2  tuae  litterae     .     .     .     maximi 

sunt  apud  me  ponderis. 

Att.  14,  14,  I  litteras   .    .    .    tuas  et  magni 

quidem  ponderis. 


42  ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 

4,  II,  2  solidi  corporis 

4,  II,  5  corporis  longi 

4,  13,  4  et  magni  ventris  et  corporis 

4,  14,  I  magni  corporis 

S»     4,  3  vasti  corporis  et  prolixi 

12,  13,  7  magni  corporis 

12,  13,  7  similis  corporis 

That  such  a  marked  preference  for  the  ablative  corpore  is  not 
without  a  cause  we  are  entitled  to  assume;  and  a  manifest  cause  is 
before  us  in  the  influence  of  the  hexameter.  Let  us  not  fall,  how- 
ever, into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  influence  of  the  hexameter 
must  be  the  only  cause  which  has  operated.  Cicero  and  Nepos  can- 
not owe  their  Ablatives  to  the  study  of  Vergil  in  school;  and  while 
we  might  attribute  their  ablatives  to  the  hexameters  of  Lucretius 
and  Ennius,  if  no  other  source  were  apparent,  we  should  still  be 
forced  to  recognize  a  different  reason  for  Plautus'  use  of  corpore;  a 
reason  which  lies  upon  the  surface  in  the  early  preponderance  of  all 
Ablatives  of  Quality  over  the  Genitives,  owing  to  the  undeveloped 
stage  of  the  genitive  construction. 

In  some  of  the  instances  cited  the  Ablative  will  have  its  ground 
in  still  other  causes;  for  instance,  in  Cic.  Leg.  Agr.  2,  13,  a  Genitive 
corporis  inculti  et  horridi  could  scarcely  have  been  applied  to  such 
a  transitory  quality  as  that  which  the  author  intended  to  describe. 

So  also  Tac.  Hist.  4,  46  (above)  and  many  other  phrases  expres- 
sing transitory  qualities;  cf.  those  having  adjectives  vcgiOy  fesso, 
trunco,  fluxis,  intecto,  defecto,  valenti,  adfecto,  etc. 

In  Nep.  Ages.  8,  i  it  is  possible  that  corpore  exiguo  is  put  in  the 
Ablative  to  balance  the  Ablative  statura  humili,  which  is  foreordained 
by  its  adjective  humilis  to  be  in  the  Ablative,  this  adjective  not  ap- 
pearing in  the  Genitive  of  Quality.  This  possibility  is  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  the  only  time  we  find  the  Genitive  corporis  exigui, 
Hor.  Epist.  I,  20,  24,  it  is  required  by  the  meter. 

In  Plin.  N.  H.  7,  24  the  Ablative,  says  Kiihner  (Gram.  §  86,  4), 
is  due  to  avoidance  of  the  Genitive  plural  of  bodily  or  mental  quali- 
ties. He  does  not  observe  that  the  disuse  of  the  Genitive  plural  may 
be  due  to  avoidance  of  the  rhyme  -orum,  -orum. 

A  further  reason  for  the  appearance  of  corpore  regularly  in  the 
Ablative  of  Quality  may  be  assumed  in  the  close  similarity  between 
the  idea  of  the  body  itself  and  the  idea  of  the  parts  of  the  body. 


I 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


43 


Everybody  wrote  the  bodily  parts  in  the  Ablative,  and  why  not  also 
corpore  ? 

Whether  any  of  the  writers  were  conscious  of  imitating  the  Ver- 
gilian  form  when  they  wrote  the  Ablative  corpore  it  is  not  for  us  to 
inquire.  That  the  hexameter  poets  were  free  in  its  use  and  limited 
in  their  use  of  the  Genitive  by  the  requirements  of  their  verse  must  be 
apparent. 

This  evidence  of  a  metrical  influence  upon  the  use  of  corpore  is 
sustained  most  clearly  by  the  situation  with  regard  to  the  use  of 
ponderis,  pondere.     Pondus  stands  in  no  such  relation  to  the  parts 
of  the   body   as  does   corpus.     Neither  is  it   an  external   nor  a 
transient  quality.     Guided,    accordingly,    by  the  character   of  its 
idea,    we  should  look  for  its  occurrence    in   the   Genitive  rather 
than  in  the  Ablative.     Such  was  the  usage  of  Caesar,  one  of  the  most 
correct  writers,  who  has,  B.  G.  2,  29,  3  magni  ponderis  saxa,  and 
B.  G.  7,  22,  5  maximi  pqjideris  saxis,  with  never  the  Ablative  pon- 
dere.    Servius  may  have  had  some  such  idea  when  he  explained 
Verg.  JEn.  10,  381  magno  pondere    saxum,  with  the  remark  ''hoc 
est;  magni  ponderis,  ut  'aere  cavo  clipeum '  (^n.  3,  286)  pro  'seris 
cavi;'"  just  as  to  ^n.  i,  71  he  comments  ''praestanti  autem  cor- 
pore,  pro    pnestantis  corporis,    ablativum  pro   genitivo."      From 
Cicero  Stegmann  can  quote  but  two  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  ex- 
pressions of  weight  appear  in  the  Genitive,  and  these  both  consist 
of  the  same  phrase,  Cic.  Verr.  2,  4,  32  hydriam  prceclaro  opere  et 
grandi   pondere  and  Nat.  Deor.  3,  83    amiculum  grandi  pondere. 
To  these  may  be  added  two  more  expressions  of  weight  which  Steg- 
mann's  observation  did  not  include;  Att.  10,  i,  i  filius  eodem  apud 
me  pondere,  quo  ille  fuit,  and  Acad.  2,121  naturalibus  fieri  aut  fac- 
tum esse  docet  ponderibus  et  motibus.     If  we  add  these,  still  the 
number  is  so  small  that  we  may  regard  the  Ablative  for  expressions 
of  weight  as  exceptional.     Cicero's  use  of  the  Genitive  ponderis  and 
its  natural  and  logical  employment  in  the  pages  of  succeeding  writ- 
ers may  be  observed  from  the  following  instances,  added  to  those 
mentioned  from  Caesar  above. 

Cic.  Fam.  2,  19,  2  tuae  litterae     .     .     .     maximi 

sunt  apud  me  ponderis. 
Att.  14,  14,  I  litteras    .    .    .    tuas  et  magni 

quidem  ponderis. 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


45 


liv. 


Vatin.  9  boni  viri  iudicent  id  est  max- 

imi  momenti  et  pendens. 
Plane.  4  (merita  Plancii)  magni    .    .    . 

pendens  apud  ves  esse  de- 
bere. 
I,  II,  8  aureas    armillas    magni    pen- 
dens. 
3>  57 y  7  coronam  auream    .     .     parvi 

pendens. 
22,  32,  4  paterae  aureae  magni  pendens. 
22,  32,  9  patera  quae  pendens  minimi. 
33 f  3^y  13  torques  magni  pendens. 
37 f  46,  3  vasa     .     .     multa  magni  pen- 
dens. 
I,  I,  Ext.  3  magni  pendens    auree    Ami- 

cule. 
4,  I,  Ext.  7  magni  pendens  aurea   mensa. 
10,  I,  24  aurea  magni  penderis  vasa. 
N.  H.  33,  107  ut  sit  modici  penderis. 

37,  24  mirandi     penderis    (gemmam 
nasci). 
Silv.  I,  4,  7  cervix  Penderis  immensi. 

Ad.  M.  Caes.        i,  5  Eiusdem  usus  et  penderis. 

39,  2,  6  levis  simulacrum  infiniti  pen- 
deris. 

Since  we  were  awaiting  such  a  predisposition  for  the  Genitive 
penderis,  we  shall  be  surprised  now  to  find  the  literature  furnishing 
more  instances  of  the  Ablative  pondere  than  of  penderis  itself. 
The  surprise  will  vanish  when  we  consider  where  the  Ablatives 
occur.     They  are,  in  the  first  place, 

Lucr.  4,  905  tympana  pondere  magno. 

5,  540  nulle  sunt  pondere  membra. 
5,  558  quam  magno  pondere  nobis. 

5,  975  magno  pondere  clavae. 

6,  549  tecta.     .     non  magno  pondere  tota. 
6,  692  mirande  pondere  saxa. 
5,  401  immani  pondere  caestus. 
5,  447  ad  terram  pondere  vasto  Concidit. 
9,  5 1 2  saxa  quoque  infesto,  volvebant  pon- 
dere,   

10,  381  magno  vellit  dum  pondere  saxum. 
5,  577  magno  tellurem  pondere  mensus. 

Everywhere  the  Ablative  in  the  fifth  foot  of  the  hexameter!     And 
mark,  especially,  the  unavoidable  pondere  saxum,  saxa,  of  Lucr.  6, 


Val.  Max. 


Curt.  Ruf. 
Plin. 


Stat. 

Frento 

Justin. 


Next  Verg.  iEn. 


And  here  Stat.  Theb. 


\ 


.P 


692  and  Verg.  9,  512;  10,  381  in  comparison  with  the  mere  correct 
magni ponderis  saxa  of  Caesar,  cited  above.  The  ordinary  distinc- 
tion with  regard  to  the  usage  in  expressions  of  weight  has  given 
way  before  the  requirements  of  the  hexameter. 

In  Her.  Epod.  4,    18  navium  gravi  pondere  (Peerlkamp:  aere 

navium  gravi  pondera); 

the  Ablative  is  not  required  by  the  meter;  but  in  the  pentameter  of 
Propertius, 

I,  17,  24  ut  mihi  non  ullo  pondere  terra  feret; 

the  Genitive  was  metrically  inadmissible. 

Besides  the  instances  already  mentioned  from  the  poets  and 
Cicero,  the  following  few  appear  in  prose: 

Curt.  Ruf  5, 2, 1 1  L  millia  talentum  argenti,  non  signati  forma 

sed  rudi  pondere. 
Tac.  Hist.   2,  22  molares  ingenti  pondere. 
Ann.  2,  57  corenae  aureae  magno  pondere. 

16,     I  magna  vis  auri,  rudi  et  antique  pondere. 
Gell.  5,  8,  5  (Verg.  iEn.  3,  618)  immani  pondere  caestus. 

Of  these  few  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  all  except  one  have 
adjectives  with  the  Genitive  in  -is,  the  exception  being  in  Tacitus, 
who  never  uses  the  Genitive  ponderis,  and  it  contains  the  adjective 
magno,  which  was  frequent  in  the  hexameter. 

Thus,  the  history  of  penderis  supports  the  argument  that  the 
limitations  of  hexameter  have  been  a  factor  in  determining  the  use 
of  certain  Ablatives  of  Quality. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


47 


CHAPTER  m- 


If  the  Ablative  is  the  ''with"  case  and  the  Genitive  the  *'of' 
case,  then  it  is  natural  that  we  should  feel  the  relation  between  an 
Ablative  of  Quality  and  a  Genitive  of  Quality  modifying  the  same 
noun  to  be  substantially  identical  with  that  which  subsists  between 
the  ideas  of  ''with"  and  "of,"  the  former  relating  the  quality  to  its 
noun  in  the  guise  of  something  appearing  with  the  noun,  an  attend- 
ant quality  of  circumstance;  the  latter  in  the  guise  of  something 
belonging  to  the  noun,  its  permanent  or  essential  attribute.  Gram- 
marians have  all,  in  a  general  way,  shared  this  feeling,  and  if  one 
has  emphasized  the  permanency  of  an  attributive,  another  its  essen- 
tiality as  the  ground  of  its  expression  in  the  Genitive,  neither  has 
been,  in  practice,  very  wide  of  the  truth,  and,  when  in  error,  has 
been  so,  not  because  of  a  failure  to  perceive  the  logical  difference 
between  Ablative  and  Genitive,  but  because  of  certain  circumstances 
attending  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  two  constructions 
hitherto  not  sufficiently  observed.  If,  from  the  beginning  on,  both 
expressions  of  quality  had  stood  in  the  same  stage  of  development  as 
that  in  which  they  stand  in  the  usage  of  Livy,  it  is  likely  that  much 
of  the  apparent  inconsistency  in  their  use  would  have  been  avoided. 
Historically,  such  was  not  the  case.  In  Plautus  the  Ablative  alone 
is  common;  whether  expressing  so  transitory  a  quality  as  a  moment's 
good  courage,  Amph.  671  Bono  animo  es;  a  passing  shade  of  bodily 
expression,  Asin.  401  tristi  fronte,  quassanti  capite,  or  so  permanent 
and  inalterable  a  quality  as  the  shape  of  the  nose,  color  of  the  eyes, 
Capt  647  macilento  ore,  naso  acuto,  corpore  albo,  oculis  nigris; 
the  stature,  Poen.  1 11 2  Statura  hau  magna,  or  the  degree  of  one's 
birth.  Cist  130  sicyone,  summo  genere. 

The  objection  against  Kriiger's  distinction  between  a  subject 
thought  of  "wie  er  ist"  and  "wie  er  sich  zeigt"  held  the  ground 
that  it  would  often  amount  to  a  begging  of  the  whole  question  for 
us  to  say  what  subjective  distinction  was  present  to  the  author's 
mind.  Where  an  undeniable  distinction  can  be  drawn  between  a 
permanent  and  a  transient,  an  external  and  an  internal,  a  physical  and 
an  abstract  quality,  we  shall  have  ground  for  the  assertion  of  a  dif- 
ference in   the  author's  subjective  attitude  towards  the  qualities 


I' 


I 


expressed.  But,  when  no  such  clear  distinction  appears,  are  we 
then  to  deny  the  subjective  difference  in  the  author's  ideas  ?  We 
say  in  English  "a  man  with  a  lofty  character,"  and  again,  "a  man 
of  lofty  character."  We  speak  in  both  cases  of  the  same  man,  but 
we  feel  the  difference  between  the  two  ideas.  Shall  we  then  deny  a 
similar  subjective  distinction  to  the  minds  of  the  Roman  writers, 
who  said;  Cic.  de  Fin.  2,105  niagno  hie  ingenio,  and  Suet, 
gramm.  7,  fuisse  dicitur  ingenii  magni  (of  Antonius  Gnipho)?  We 
need  not  contend  that  ingenium  was  a  different  thing  in  the  cases  of 
Themistocles  and  Gnipho,  but  simply  that  the  two  ideas  here 
expressed  were  differently  felt.  We  speak  in  English  of  a  man  "of 
the  greatest  kindness, "  and  within  an  hour  we  refer  to  him  again  as 
"with  the  greatest  kindness."  The  two  notions  are  distinct,  but 
we  mean  the  same  individual.  Is  there  not  a  similar  subjective  dis- 
tinction expressed  when  Cicero  says,  Fam.  13,  23,  2,  hominem 
summa  probitate,  humanitate  observantiaque  cognosces,  and  Fam. 
16,  4,  2,  suavissimum  hominem  summi  officii  summaque  humani- 
tatis  ?  Of  course,  these  English  phrases  are  for  illustration,  not  for 
argument.  That  a  distinction  is  felt  in  English  is  no  proof  that  it 
was  felt  also  by  the  Latin  mind.  Its  existence  in  English,  however, 
does  illustrate  the  possibility  of  its  existence  elsewhere,  and  it  must 
be  admitted  that  if  we  fancy  its  existence  in  Latin  we  shall  scarcely 
be  able  to  look  for  a  setting  right  through  any  proof  of  its  non- 
existence. 

While  this  characteristic  distinction  between  the  "with "and 
"of"  cases  is  largely  subjective  in  the  constructions  of  Ablative  and 
Genitive  of  Quality,  yet  we  should  not  overlook  certain  groups  of  these 
Ablative  and  Genitives  where  the  distinction  to  be  made  is  objective. 
Thus,  eiusmodi  is  invariable  in  the  Genitive,  offering  an  objective 
difference  from  eo  modo,  which  would  not  be  reckoned  at  all  as  a 
qualitatis  phrase.  Again,  maximi  pretii  does  not  correspond  objec- 
tively with  an  Ablative  of  Quality  maximo  pretio,  if  the  latter  phrase 
could  be  found.  Again,  we  should  think  of  very  different  objects 
if  we  took  in  mind  first  a  vallum  trium  pedum  and  then  a  vallum  tri- 
bus  pedibus;  and  so  with  all  the  expressions  of  measure  in  the  Geni- 
tive of  Quality.  Thus  also  expressions  like  multi  cibi  hospitem,  multi 
loci;  multi  sudoris  res,  etc.,  are  not  objectively  the  same  as  multo 
cibo  hospitem,  multo  sudore  res.  The  Ablative  is  too  literal.  How 
could  a  "res"  be  multo  sudore?     In  other  highly  figurative  expres- 


48 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


sions,  too,  like  homo  trium  litteranim  the  Genitive  has  no  objective 
correspondence  with  an  Ablative.  We  never  find  a  thief  (fur)  de- 
scribed as  homo  tribus  litteris.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  nearly 
all  the  eariy  Genitives  in  use  are  such  as  show  this  objective  differ- 
ence from  the  Ablative.  Many  of  them  are  figurative,  whereas  the 
Ablatives  are  chiefly  descriptive  of  qualities  literally  construed.  A 
few  early  Genitives  which  show  no  objective  difference  are  the  fol- 
lowing: Plant.  Men.  269  animi  perditi;  Most.  814  humani  ingeni 
||humano  ingenio||;  Bacc.  7  mi  cognominis;  Bacc.  770  magnae  di- 
vidiae;  Enn.  Euhem.  fig.  4,  v.  50  virilis  sexus  (?)  Ten  Andr.  608 
multi  consilii;  C.  I.  L.  1086  maximoe  probitatis.  These  are  unusual 
for  early  Latin.  It  is  with  Cicero  that  the  Genitive  first  becomes 
common  in  a  use  showing  what  we  have  called  the  subjective  differ- 
ence between  Genitive  and  Ablative. 

For  testing  our  own  ideas  of  the  degree  of  distinction  between 
these  two  constructions  we  shall  have  no  clearer  field  than  that  af- 
forded by  the  instances  where  both  Ablative  and  Genitive  appear 
side  by  side  within  the  limits  of  the  same  sentence  and  especially 
where  they  modify  the  same  noun.  This  is  our  warrant  for  bringing 
forward  in  the  present  chapter  examples  of  the  sort  just  described. 
Our  grammarians  are  accustomed  to  quote  a  few  well-worn  passages 
in  illustration  of  the  phenomena  before  us,  and  to  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  both  cases  **may  often  be  used  indifferently"  (A.  & 
G.,  251,  a).  **Unterscheidet  sich  nicht  wesentlich,"  says  Draeger. 
"Otherwise  there  is  often  no  difference"  is  Gil dersleeve's  guarded 
phrase.  We  have  at  hand  a  hundred  passages  which  furnish  in- 
stances of  enallage,  or  have  been  so  understood  by  various  com- 
mentators. Taking  them  up  in  order  we  ought  to  find  the  truth 
about  the  relation  of  the  two  cases  abundantly  illustrated. 

I.   Plant.  Vid.  v.  42  Si  tibi  pudico  hominest  opus  et  non  malo 

Qui  tibi  fidelior  sit  quam  servi  tui 
Cibique  minumi  maxumaque  industria 
Minime  mendace,  em  me  licet  conducere 

A  Genitive  here  instead  of  the  Ablative  maxuma  industria  would 
have  been  foreign  to  Plautine  usage,  for  industria  is  an  attribute 
used  by  way  of  straightforward  description  and  used  literally.  On  the 
other  hand  cibi  minumi  is  quite  a  different  thing.  The  idea  ex- 
pressed by  it  is  not  such  as  could  have  been  conveyed  by  cibo  minumo. 


i 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


49 


The  significant  fact  is  that  cibi  minumi  is  related  to  a  class  of  (geni- 
tives which  are  apparently  translations  of  Greek  adjective  com- 
pounds in  TToXv,  as  has  been  noted  in  Chapter  II,  page  36. 
These  Genitives  never  appear  in  Ablative  form  and  seem  to  have 
come  early  into  use  and  to  have  remained  fixed  in  usage  as  they  en- 
tered it.  Thus,  beside  our  example  of  cibi  minumi,  we  may  place 
Cic.  Fam.  9,  26,  4  non  multi  cibi  hospitem  accipies,  multi  ioci; 
Sueton.  Aug.  76  Cibi  plurimi  erat  atque  vulgaris  fere;  Galb.  22, 
cibi  plurimi  traditur;  Varro.  R.  R.  2,  11  minimi  cibi;  Fronto  32 
neque  est  Gratia  mea,  ut  causidicorum  uxores  feruntur  multi  cibi. 
Here  then  we  should  not  say  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
Ablative  and  Genitive,  but  rather  that  the  distinction  is  such  as 
would  allow  neither  to  be  replaced  by  the  other. 

2.  Ter.  Adel.  441  di  boni 

Ne  illius  modi  iam  nobis  magna  civium 
Penuriast  antiqua  virtute  ac  fide. 

The  Ablatives  here  are  regular  according  to  the  usage  of  Plautus 
and  Terence,  expressing  literal  characteristics  in  immediate  and  evi- 
dent connection  with  the  subject.  The  Genitive,  a  compound  of 
modi,  is,  however,  totally  different,  both  in  origin  and  in  usage. 
Certainly  it  was  felt  throughout  all  the  literature  to  be  so  different 
that  it  was  never  paralleled  by  an  Ablative  form. 

3.  Cic.  Verr.  5,   30  Inter  eiusmodi  viros  et  mulieres,  adulta  aetate 

filius  versabatur,  ut  eum,  etiamsi  natura  a  parentis 
similitudine  abriperet,  consuetudo  tamen  discip- 
lina  patris  similem  esse  cogeret. 

Assuming  that  adulta  aetate  is  Ablative  of  Quality  we  have  euis- 
modi  and  adulta  aetate  in  the  same  sentence,  though  modifying  dif- 
ferent nouns.  The  distinction  between  compounds  of  modi  and  the 
Ablative  we  have  discussed  under  the  preceding  example.  Eius- 
modi is  like  the  other  compounds  of  modi,  appearing  always  in  the 
Genitive.  The  regularity  of  aetate  in  the  Ablative  of  Quality  is  shown 
by  Cicero's  use  of  it  in  the  following  passages:  Verr.  3,  160  in  epulis 
adulta  aetate  inter  impudicas  mulieres  versatus;  Or.  post  Red.  28 
quacunque  aut  aetate  aut  valetudine  esset;  Quir.  6  iam  spectata 
aetate  filius;  Deiot.  27  is  ea  existimatione  eaque  aetate  saltavit;  Clu. 
51  qua   (aetate)  turn  eram;  Div.  Caec.   70   accusatorem  ea  aetate, 


50 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


51 


cum  aedilitatem  petat;  Acad.  2,  125  innumerabiles  paribus  in  locis 
esse  eisdem  nominibus,  honoribus  .  .  aetatibus;  Off.  2,  87  iste 
fere  aetate  cum  essemus,  qua  es  tu  nunc;  Nat.  Deer,  i,  81  decs  ea 
.  .  aetate;  Cat.  Maj.  47  cum  ex  eo  (Sophocle)  quidem  iam  adfecto 
aetate  quaereret;  Tusc.  5,  62  adulescens  improvida  aetate;  Fam.  10, 
3,  3  consul  designatus,  optima  aetate,  summa  eloquentia;  Att.  4,  16, 
3  qui  et  aetate  et  valetudine  fuit  ea  qua  memenisti.  Aside  from 
De  Div.  2,  88,  which  will  be  discussed  at  No.  5  below,  there  is  but 
a  single  example  of  the  Genitive  to  set  over  against  these  Ablatives. 
Div.  Caec.  41  eiusdem  aetatis  nemo  aut  pauci,  and  this,  in  view  of 
its  solitude  as  a  Genitive  of  Quality,  may  possibly  be  construed  as  a 
possessive  =  *'no  one  of  the  same  period,"  though  that  is  forced, 
the  natural  interpretation  being  as  Genitive  of  Quality  =  **no  one 
of  the  same  age  (/.  e.,  ^j  years)." 


4.  Cic.    Verr. 


14,  18.  In  hac  insula  extrema  est  fons  aquae 
dulcis,  cui  nomen  Arethusa  est,  incredibili  mag- 
nitudine  plenissimus  piscium. 


Roby  cites  this  as  an  example  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  though 
without  calling   attention  to  the  juxtaposition  of  the  Ablative  in- 
credibili  magnitudine.     If  we  are  not  to  regard   aqu^e  dulcis  as  a 
genitive  of  the  **  Particular  Kind  or  Contents  :  that  in  or  of  which 
a   thing  consists"  (Roby,  §  1302),  or  a    "Genitive   of  Sort,   Ma- 
terial "  (Roby,  §1304),  then  we  must  at  least  inquire  whether  the 
quality  '*  aquae  dulcis"  does  not   pertain  to  a  fons  in  a  way  distin- 
guishable from  that  in  which  its  **  incredibili  magnitudine"  does. 
This  difference  could  be  felt  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  both  were  alike 
permanent  qualities  and  not  transitory,  and  both  internal  as  much  as 
external.     If  the  difference  is  that  aquae  dulcis  is  corporeal  while 
magnitudine  is  abstract,  then  the  cases  ought,  by  our  expectarion, 
to  be  reversed,  the  abstract  appearing  in  the  Genitive  and  vice  versa. 
But  Roby  has  involved  us  in  needless  difficulty.     Aqu^e  dulcis  is  not 
a  Genitive  of  Quality  but  a  Genitive  of  Material.     Lane  calls  the 
construcrion  (gram.,  p.  202)  Genitive  of  Definition. 

Were  we  still  to  assume  that  Roby's  interpretation  of  aquse  dul- 
cis were  right,  we  might  at  least  show  that  incredibili  magnitudine 
could  hardly  have  appeared  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality.  Cicero  uses 
magnitudo  only  in  the  Ablative.     Verr.  4,  65  simulacrum  lovis  ea 


r 


magnitudine,  ut  intellegi  posset  ad  amplissimi  templi  ornatum  esse 
factum  ;  4,  103  dentes  eburneos  incredibili  magnitudine;  Sest.  26 
vir  incredibili  fide,  magnitudine  animi,  constantia ;  De  Orat.  2,  299 
fertur  incredibili  magnitudine  consilii  fuisse  Themistocles ;  Nat. 
Deor.  2,  92,  sidera  magnitudinibus  immensis ;  De  Div.  231 
mirabili  magnitudine  uvam  invenit ;  Rep.  6,  1 7  sol  .  .  .  tanta 
magnitudine,  ut  cuncta  sua  luce  compleat.  In  addition  to 
this  fact,  the  avoidance  of  the  Genitive  of  Adjectives  in  -is,  -is, 
which  includes  incredibilis,  would  give  us  a  double  reason  why  with 
aquae  dulcis  already  written,  a  change  of  construction  to  the  Abla- 
tive would  have  to  appear. 

5.  Cic.  De  Div.  2,  ^2>  Nominat  .  .   Panaetius  .  .  Anchialum  et  Cas- 

sandrum,    summos  astrologos  illius  aetatis,  qua 
erat  ipse,  .  .  hoc  praedictionis  genere  non  usos: 

Although  at  first  glance  illius  aetatis  looks  like  a  Genitive  of 
Quality,  it  needs  but  a  moment's  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  three 
astrologers  belonged  to  the  same  period  but  were  not  the  same  num- 
ber of  years  old  to  see  that  the  meaning  is  probably  =  greatest 
Astrologers  of  that  age  in  which  he  lived,  where  qua  is  an  '*in" 
case  ;  erat  =  vivebat ;  and  illius  aetatis  =  huius  saeculi,  a  possessive, 
and  no  Qualitatis  at  all.  Had  the  meaning  been  that  Anchialus  and 
Cassander  were  men  of  the  same  years  as  Pan^tius,  born  under  the 
same  star,  we  should  look  for  eiusdem  and  quae. 

6.  Cic.  Arch.    31  Quare   conservate  hominem  pudore  eo,    quern 

.     .     .,    ingenio  autem  tanto,  quantum    .    .     ., 
Causa  vero  eiusmodi,  quae     .     .     comprobetur. 

Mirmont  (Ed.  Paris,  1895)  comments  "  Le  desir  d'avoir  une 
periode  symmetrique  a  conduit  Ciceron  i.  faire  une  construction 
singuliere;  Un  homme  d'une  honorabilit6,  .  .  .  d'un  genie 
.  .  .  d'une  cause."  And  J.  S.  Reid  (Ed.  Cambr.,  1897),  re- 
marks, in  the  same  manner,  **  Causa  eiusmodi  parallel  to  pudore  eo, 
ingenio  tanto,  so  eiusmodi  is  treated  as  though  it  were  an  indeclin- 
able adjective.  .  .  .  The  use  of  causa  as  a  qualitative  ablative 
is  noticeable,  since  causa  cannot  by  any  stretch  be  regarded  as  a 
quality  residing  in  a  man."  It  is  true  the  phrase  causa  eiusmodi  is 
odd,  but  if  we  free  ourselves  from  the  idea  that  the  Ablative  of 


5« 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


Quality  must  express  a  quality  -residing  in  a  man,"  and  come  to 
understand  it  as  setting  forth  a  circumstance  or  quality  perceived  in 
connection  with  the  man,  we  shall  be  prepared  to  accept  causa  with 
any  adjective  as  an  Ablative  of  Quality. 

The  genitive  here  is  again  a  compound  of  modi. 
In  a  different  construction  we  find  this  same  phrase  occurring  in 
Cic.  Clu.  51  in  eiusmodi  causa. 

To  avoid  this  construction  of  causa  which  seemed  so  strange 
Wolfflin  proposes.  Arch.  XI.  484,  with  a  different  punctuation,  the 
interpretation  of  causa  as  nominative,  and  this  possibility  ought  not 
to  be  overlooked. 

7.  Cic.  Fam.  i,  7,  1 1  Lentulum  eximia  spe,  summse  virtutis  adules- 

centem     .     .     .     fac  erudias  (summa  virtute  M 
summae  virtutis  G  R  M^). 

Kriiger  cites  this  example  as  given,  to  illustrate  his  statement 
that  the  Genitive  shows  the  subject  -  wie  er  ist,"  the  Ablative  '^  wie  er 
sich  zeigt,"  and  translates    -einen    sehr  tugendhaften  Jiingling  der 
treffliche    Hoffnungen    erweckt"    Zumpt    cites   the  same    passage 
in   illustration    of    his    statement    that    beyond    a    certain   point 
no  sure  line  can  be  drawn  between  Ablative  and  Genitive.     Tyrrell 
reads  as  above  cited,  without  comment,  and  so  do  Supffle,  Watson 
and    Muirhead.      Mendelssohn  corrects    the   error  into  which  the 
editors  have  fallen  by  reading  here  with  M.,   Lentulum  eximia  spe 
summa  virtute.     The  correctness  of  the  reading  of  M  is  sustained  by 
two  facts  which  have  been  brought  to  light  by  the  present  investiga- 
tion.    First,  if  the  Genitive  of  Quality  summse  virtutis  had  been 
used  here,  it  would  have  been  the  first  instance  of  its  use  in  Latin 
literature  and  contrary  both  to  the  general  usage  of  the  time  and  to 
that  of  the  author  here  using  it.     There  are  only  three  instances  of 
summus  in  the  first  declension  used  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  by 
Cicero  previous  to  59  B.  C,  the  date  of  this  letter.     Verr.  2,  3,  103 
summae  industriae;  Font.    16  summae  auctoritatis;  Rose.   Com.    16 
summae    existimationis.      Add  to   these   Sull.,   34  summi    consilii 
Verr.  2,  3,  103  summi  laboris  and  Font.  41  summi  consilii  and  the 
number  of  instances  of  summus  in  either  declension  in  the  Geni- 
tive of  Quality  remains  small.     Although  few,  these  instances  might 
have  given  Cicero  the  analogy  for  a  logical  use  of  summae  virtutis  in 
this  place  if  Cicero  had  so  elected.     That  he  did  not  so  elect  is  evi- 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


53 


dent  from  his  use  ofsumma  virtute  in  Verr.  2,  3,  60,  and  Sull.  42,  and 
later  in  De  Or.  3,  87  summa  virtute  et  prudentia;  Fam.  4,  6,  i 
summo  ingenio  summa  virtute  filium;  Fam.  11,  22,  2  hominem 
summo  ingenio  summa  virtute;  Phil.  3,  36  summa  prudentia  virtute 
Concordia;  Phil.  10,  3  summa  virtute  gravitate  constantia.  Not 
until  towards  the  end  of  Cicero's  life,  when  the  Genitive  of  Quality 
had  greatly  spread,  in  several  channels,  and  been  used  by  such  a 
conservative  writer  as  Caesar,  did  an  instance  of  summae  virtutis 
creep  into  Cicero's  use;  Cat  Maj.  59  Lysander  Lacedaemonius,  vir 
summae  virtutis.  In  the  second  place  the  use  of  such  a  Genitive 
as  summae  virtutis  by  the  side  of  eximia  spe  is  unlikely  because  of 
the  usage  of  spe. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  at  page  25  that  spe  is  used  in  the 
Ablative  of  Quality  in  early  Latin  and  in  Cicero,  and  later,  to  de- 
note the  hope  which  the  subject  feels.  In  the  instance  before  us, 
however,  spe  is  not  the  hope  which  the  subject  feels,  but  the  hope 
which  the  subject  (Lentulus)  awakens  and  which  the  observer  feels, 
diflfering  thus  objectively  from  the  spe  of  the  early  examples.  Now 
it  is  not  strange  that  Cicero,  writing  in  the  year  56  B.  C,  before  the 
use  of  many  Genitives  of  Quality  was  strong  about  him,  should  have 
followed  the  unbroken  usage  of  the  early  time,  and  of  his  own,  and 
written  down  even  this  different  kind  of  hope  in  the  Ablative,  just 
as  he  wrote  summa  virtute  in  the  Ablative.  But  had  he  been  in  the 
mood  for  coining  new  Genitives,  as  he  must  have  been  had  he 
written  summae  virtutis,  then  is  there  not  a  great  probability  that  he 
would  also  have  taken  advantage  of  the  objective  difference  between 
the  old  **hope"  idea  of  spes  and  his  new  ** promise"  idea,  and 
coined  also  the  Genitive  spei,  instead  of  leaving  that  for  Caesar  in 
the  next  decade  ?  That  Cicero  did  not  coin  spei  is  evidence  that  he 
did  not  coin  virtutis,  but  wrote,  as  M  preserves  the  reading,  summa 
virtute. 

8.  Cic.  Q.  F.  2,  9,  4  Lucretii  poemata  ut  scribis,  ita  sunt,   multis 

luminibus  ingenii,  multae  tamen  artis. 

Muller  reads  as  above,  with  the  critical  comment  ||  non  multis 
multi — etiam  pro  tamen.  Or.  Wesenb.  Baiter.  Infinitus  est  numerus 
conjecturarum  ||.  Tyrrell  cites  ||  ita  .  .  .  .  artis  ]  M;  lita  pro  ita 
R.;  non  ita  sunt,  Vict;  non  multis  luminibus,  Em.;  non  multae 
artis,  Kl. ;  Multae  etiam  artis,  Or. ;  ut  scribis  ita  sunt,  multis  lumini- 


54 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


bus  ingenii;  multae  tamen  artis  esse  cum  in  veneris,  virum  te  putabo; 
Si  Salustii  Empedoclea  legeris,  hominem  non  putabo,  H  A  / 
Munro.  ||  '  '  J- 

All  the  questions  concerning  the  reading  of  this  much  disputed 
passage  we  may  dismiss  from  the  present  discussion,  since  in  every 
case  we  are  left  with  an  Ablative  luminibus  and  a  Genitive  artis,  the 
nature  of  which  will  be  the  same  whether  we  read  mult«  or  nullius. 
The  difficult  questions  of  interpretation,  also,  we  shall  not  attempt  to 
decide.     It  is,  however,  at  the  least,  worthy  of  remark  that  plurals 
appear  oftenest  in  the  Ablative,  as  does  luminibus;  and  that  this 
Ablative  is  clearly  felt  as  a  -with  "  case  and  hence  is  logically  used. 
On  the  other  hand  multae  artis  is  highly  figurative,  as  Tyrrell  notes, 
to  Fam.  7,  i,  2,  where  Rose.  Am.  6  and  Fam.  9,  26,  4  are  also  cited! 
Our  phrase  would   correspond  to  a  Greek  adjective  TtoXvTexvos 
and  the  regular  appearance  of  such  phrases  in  the  Genitive  has  been 
discussed  under  No.  i. 

9.  Cic  De  Leg.  3,  45  Quo  verius  in  causa  nostra  vir  magni  ingenii 

summaque   prudentia,    L.    Cotta,    dicebat  .   .   . 
nihil  actum  esse  de  nobis. 

B.  &  K.  no  variant.     Orelli  &  Baiter  read   magno  ingenio  and 
annote  II  O.  cum  Davisio  ||.    **Eine  eigenthiimliche  Mischung"  re- 
marks Stegmann  over  this  example.     The  comment  of  Feldhiigel 
(cited  by  Du  Mesnil,  Lpz.  1879),  is  to  the  same  effect,  and  supports 
the  reading  by  the  well-known  passages  from  Cic.  Brut.  67,  237; 
Nep.  Dat.  3,  i;  Cic.  Fam.  i,    7,    n,  and  Off.  i,    19,   99,  although 
of  these   none   shows   a   Genitive   ingenii,  whereas  the  first  shows 
an  Ablative  ingenio.     The  oddity  of  the  example,  to  Feldhugel's 
mind,  consists  apparently  merely  in  the  juxtaposition   of  the  two 
cases.     Certainly  there  is  nothing  odd  in  Cicero's  use  of  the  Abla- 
tive summa  prudentia.     Cf.  Fam.  3,  7,  5  homo  summa  prudentia; 
Fam.  4,  2,  2  summaque  prudentia;  DeOr.  3,  87  summa  virtute  et 
prudentia;  Phil.  3,  ^6  summa  prudentia  virtute  concordia;  Phil.  2, 
13  summo  ingenio  summaque  prudentia.     But  with   this  last   ex- 
ample,  summo   ingenio   summaque  prudentia   in  mind,  Stegmann 
may  well  have  thought   magni  ingenii  summaque  prudentia  odd; 
and   especially  when  he  remembered  the  forty-five  instances  of  in- 
genium  in  the  Ablative  of  Quality  which  he  had  cited  from  Cicero 
(to  which  may  be  added  twelve  more  from  Cicero,  which  Stegmann's 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


55 


investigation  did  not  include).  The  use  of  ingenio  in  the  Ablative 
of  Quality  by  all  the  early  writers  as  well  as  Cicero  is  overwhelm- 
ingly preponderating. 

Plautus  uses  it  13  times;  Terence  8  times;  Pacuvius  twice; 
"Ennius,  Caecilius  and  Afranius  each  furnish  an  example  of  its  use. 
Over  against  this  multitude  of  early  Ablatives  only  one  early  Geni- 
tive ingenii  is  at  hand;  Plant.  Most.  814  Atque  esse  existumo 
humani  ingeni;  and  there  the  text  is  disputed,  many  editors  read- 
ing ingenio. 

Cicero's  own  usage  furnishes  six  instances  which  seem  like 
Genitive  of  Quality  with  ingenii,  besides  the  one  before  us.  Caec. 
5  video  summi  ingenii  causam  esse;  Q.  Rose.  48  est  hoc  princi- 
pium  improbi  animi  miseri  ingenii,  nuUi  consilii  (where  Miiller 
reads  principio);  Att.  i,  20,  i  te  .  .  .  moderatissimum  fuisse 
vehementissime  gaudeo  idque  neque  amoris  mediocris  et  ingenii 
summi  ac  sapientiae  iudico;  De  Or.  2,  300  videsne  quae  vis  in 
homine  acerrimi  ingenii,  quam  potens  et  quanta  mens  fuerit.? 
Brut,  no  in  quibusdam  laudandi  viri  etiam  maximi  ingenii  non 
essent  probabiles  tamen  industria  (here,  again,  the  text  is  in  dis- 
pute): Orat.  90  est  autem  illud  acrioris  ingenii,  hoc  maioris  artis. 
Stegmann  omits  three  of  these,  but  cites  another,  Phil.  14,  28 
which,  however,  will  be  found  to  read  maximi  animi,  not  ingenii. 

Of  the  six  examples  just  cited  three  involve  constructions  which 
are  widely  different  from  the  ordinary  Genitive  of  Quality.  Thus, 
in  Caec.  5,  causam  is  only  figuratively  the  subject  of  ingenii;  in  Att. 
I,  20,  and  Orat.  90  the  Genitives  are  properly  not  qualitatis  at  all, 
but  possessives.  In  two  other  passages  the  reading  of  the  Genitive 
is  in  dispute  and  this  leaves  but  a  single  unquestioned  Ciceronian 
instance  to  support  our  passage,  against  the  57  instances  in  which 
the  Ablative  is  used.  The  manuscripts  and  early  editions  of  the 
De  Legibus  on  which  the  text  of  our  passage  rests  are  not  of  the 
most  satisfactory  kind.  The  irregularity  of  ingenii  raises  the  sug- 
gestion that  Davis  and  his  followers  may  be  right,  in  spite  of  the 
MSS.,  and  Cicero  may  have  written  here  magno  ingenio.  Other- 
wise we  have  certainly  '*eine  eigenthiimliche  Mischung." 


10.  Cic.  Brut.  237  P.  Murena  mediocri  ingenio  sed  magno  studio 

rerum  veterum  litterarum  et  studiosus  et  non  im- 
peritus,  multae  industriae  et  magni  laboris  fuit. 


; 


56 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


57 


This  is  one  of  the  oft-cited  instances  of  both  Ablative  and  Geni- 
tive in  the  same  sentence.     Stegmann  characterizes  it  as  similar  to 
the  instance  we  have  just  discussed,    *' an  odd  mixture,"     Kruger, 
on  the  other  hand,  sees  in  it  the  fair  illustration  of  his  law,  -  soil  also 
eine  innere  geistige  oder  sittliche  eigenschaft  als  characteristisch 
vorherschend  und  das  Wesen  einer  Person  bezeichnend,  dargestellt 
werden,   so    kann    nur    der    Genetiv    stehen.      Soil    sie    dagegen 
nur  als    eine    an    der    Person    erscheinende    dargestellt    werden, 
ganz  abgesehen  davon,    ob  sie  zu  dem  Wesen  derselben  gehore! 
so  steht  der  Ablativ."     He  translates  accordingly,  M.  zeig/e  wenig 
Genie,    aber  einen  grossen  Eifer   fur  das  Alterthum,    Fleiss  und 
Anstrengung  /agen  in  seinem   Wesen,     For  the  illumination  of  this 
passage  let  us  quote  the  sentence  which  follows  it.   Brut.    237  L. 
Turius  parvo  ingenio,  sed  multo  labore,  quoquo  modo  poterat  s^pe 
dicebat    .     .     .  ,    and  beside  this  let  us  set  Brut.  240  Q.  Pompeius 
A.  R,  qui  Bithynicus  dictus  est,  biennio  quam  nos  fortasse  maior, 
summo  studio  dicendi  multaque  doctrina,  incredibili  labore  atque 
mdustria.     The  quality  of  L.  Turius  described  by  multo  labore  is 
the  same,  objectively,  as  that  of  Murena  described  by  multi  laboris. 
So  are  the  incredibili  labore  atque  industria  of  Pompeius,  considered 
objectively,  the  same  as  the  mult^e  industriae  et  magni  laboris  of 
Murena,  and  while  special  reasons  may  be  given  for  the  case  of  each 
mstance  where  it  appears;  thus,  that  incredibili,  preferred  in  the 
Ablative,  because  of  its  form   [cf.   page  32],  drew  labore  and  in- 
dustry with  it;  that  multa  doctrina  is  put  in  Ablative  for  the  sake  of 
symmetry  with  summo  studio  and  the  Ablatives  following;  and  that 
multo  labore  is  influenced  by  the  neighborhood  of  ingenio,  which 
as  we  have  seen  page    54,  is  regular   for  Cicero;  yet  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  distinction  in  question  is  purely  subjective,  if  it  is 
felt  at  all.     Kruger  recognizes  such  a  distinction  with  the  comment 
''es  leuchtet  heraus  ein,  dass  esingewissen  Fallen  darauf  ankommt, 
wie  der  Schriftsteller  eine  Eigenschaft  betrachtet  und  darstellen  will.'' 
The  weakness  of  such  subjective  interpretation  we  have  discussed 
already  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter.     Each  reader  must  judge  for 
himself  what  distinctions  lay  in  the  author's  mind.     It  is  not  impos- 
sible  that  the  use  of  the  Genitives  here  was  influenced  by  the  at- 
tempt on  Cicero's  part  to  gain  at  once  balance  and  variety  of  style 
Six  attributes   are   expressed,  two  by  two,  for  the  sake  of  balance 
two  m  the  Ablative,  two  in  the  form  of  adjectives,  and  two  in  the 
Genitive  for  the  sake  of  variety. 


II.  Cic.   Fam.  4,8,  i  neque  monere  te  audeo,  praestanti  prudentia 

virum,   nee  confirmare  maximi  animi  hominem 
unumque  fortissimum. 

This  example  illustrates  again  how  far  from  unanimous  the 
grammarians  have  been  in  their  views  of  these  constructions,  for 
Kiihner  cites  this  instance  to  illustrate  that  the  genitive  sets  forth  the 
Subject  wie  er  ist,  the  Ablative  wie  er  sich  zeigt;  Kiihner  agrees  with 
Kruger,  interpreting  '  *  Der  du  vorzugliche  Klugheit  zeigst,  aber 
maximi  animi  von  dem  Charakter. "  Zumpt  sees  here  an  illustration 
of  his  statement  that  ' '  im  ubrigen  lasst  sich  keine  scharfe  Grenze 
Ziehen. "  Madvig  quotes  the  passage  to  illustrate  that  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  Ablative  and  the  Genitive.  Draeger  remarks 
over  it,  ' '  Wahrscheinlich  nur  der  Abwechslungs  wegen  stehen  beide 
Casus  in  demselben  Satz." 

That  the  use  of  the  different  cases  serves  the  rhetorical  purpose 
of  variety  which  Draeger  recognizes  may  be  at  once  admitted,  and 
this  admission  need  not  necessitate  the  giving  up  of  Zumpt's  con- 
tention that  there  is  keine  scharfe  Grenze,  if  we  will  interpret 
'■ '  Scharfe  "  to  suit  the  case.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  bring  into 
the  discussion  here  two  facts  apparently  unnoticed  by  the  grammar- 
ians which  go  to  show  that  Cicero  did  not  use  these  cases  '*nur" 
der  Abwechslungs  wegen,  but  in  recognition  of  a  clear  distinction 
between  the  force  of  Ablative  and  Genitive.  The  first  of  these  has 
been  alluded  to  already  in  connection  with  De  Leg.  3,  45  above.  It 
is  the  fact  that  homo  summae,  etc. ,  prudentiae  was  a  thing  unknown 
to  Cicero's  usage,  homo  summa  prudentia  being  the  old-fashioned 
form  of  phrase  with  which  he  and  his  predecessors  always  character- 
ized a  man  of  this  description.  Compare  not  only  Fam.  3,  7,  5;  4, 
2,2;  De  Or.  3,  87;  Phil.  2,  13  and  3,  36,  quoted  above,  but  also 
Alt.  16,  16,  B  8;  Clu.  47;  Clu.  107;  Rab.  Perd.  26;  De  Div.  2, 
50;  Case.  34,  for  Cicero's  unvaried  use  of  prudentia  in  the  Ablative. 
So,  then,  Cicero  has  not  chosen  to  use  here  an  Ablative  instead  of  a 
Genitive  for  the  mere  sake  of  variety,  but  he  used  the  Ablative  be- 
cause it  was  the  only  form  of  this  idea  familiar  to  him,  the  Geni- 
tive of  Quality  prudentiae  not  yet  having  been  formulated.  It  may 
be  noted  here,  too,  that  had  Cicero  been  inclined  at  this  time  to  in- 
vent the  Genitive  prudentiae,  as  Hirtius  did  two  or  three  years  later, 
he  would  hardly  have  done  it  in  connection  with  this  adjective  praes- 


58 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


tanti,  which  seems,  like  most  adjectives  in-is,  to  furnish  no  instance 
of  use  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality. 

The  second  fact  is  that  to  Cicero's  mind  the  difference  between 
vir  maximi  animi  and  vir  maximo  animo  was  an  objective  difference, 
distinctly  marked.  Attention  has  been  called  in  a  previous  chapter, 
page  15,  to  the  change  of  meaning  undergone  by  animo  between  the 
time  of  Plautus  and  that  of  Cicero.  Cicero  is  the  writer  who  first 
shows  by  the  use  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality  the  distinction  in 
meaning  between  animus  =  character  and  animus  ==  the  frame  of 
mind.  And  while  the  great  prevalence  of  the  Ablatives  bono  animo, 
etc.,  led  to  the  occasional  use  of  the  Ablative  phrase  where  the 
Genitive  would  have  suited  better  the  logic  of  the  situation,  yet 
Cicero  never  went  so  far  as  to  use  the  phrase  maximo  animo  where 
he  referred  to  the  character,  but  only  maximi  animi.  Indeed,  out  of 
ninety-nine  cases  in  which  he  does  use  the  Ablative  of  Quality  with 
animo,  to  which  may  be  added  the  sixty-three  cases  of  animo  in 
earlier  writers,  only  one  contains  the  phrase  maximo  animo,  and  that 
is  Fam.  4,  13,  7  extremum  illud  est,  ut  te  orem  et  obsecrem  animo 
ut  maximo  sis  nee  solum  memineris,  etc.,  where  plainly  the  phrase  is 
only  a  rhetorical  exaggeration  of  bono  animo  sis  and  has  not  at  all 
the  force  of  the  Genitives  maximi  animi.  For  all  Cicero's  urging,  in 
the  passage  just  cited,  Figulus  could  not  at  will  have  become  vir 
maximi  animi,  though  he  might  have  become,  for  the  time  being, 
maximo  animo,  which  is  objectively  quite  a  different  thing. 

12.   De  Nat.  Deor.  2,  48  Nee  enim  hunc  ipsum  mundum  pro  certo 

rotundum  esse  dicitis;  nam  posse  fieri  ut  sit  alia 

figura,   innumerabilesque  mundos  alios  aliarum 

esse  formarum. 

Alia  figura  is  regular.     Aliarum  formarum  is  unusual  and  seems 

to  be  prompted  by  the  same  desire  for  variety  which  prompted  also 

the  use  in  the  second  phrase  of  a  synonym  formarum  in  place  of 

figura,  together  with  a  different  construction  of  the  verb  and  the  use 

of  alios  in  the  distributive  sense.     Aliarum   formarum  is  the  more 

remarkable,    too,    because     in   addition     to   being  a   Genitive   of 

Quality  in  the  plural,  which  is  in  general  uncommon,  it  involves  the 

rhyme  arum  -arum,   which  all  good  writers  preferred  to  avoid,  cf. 

page  35.     This  is  the  only  instance  of  formarum  in  the  Genitive 

of  Quality,  and  it  is  farther  remarkable,  because  at  this  time  there 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


59 


was  only  the  Ablative  of  the  singular  in  use,  the  Genitive  formae  not 
appearing  until  Horace. 

13.  Cic.  Phil.  2,  13  vir  summo  ingenio  summae  prudentiae. 

Concerning  this  instance  cited  by  Miihlmann,  which  contradicts 
Cicero's  unvaried  usage  in  respect  to  prudentiae,  it  is  necessary  only 
to  observe  that  the  modern  editors  all  read  summaque  prudentia, 
to  which  the  critical  editions  record  no  variant. 


14.  Att.  14,  14,  2  quum  dedissem  ad  te  litteras  VI.  kalend  satis 

multis  verbis,  tribus  fere  horis  post  accepi  tuas, 
et  magni  quidem  ponderis. 

Cicero  would  hardly  allow  a  genitive  to  stand  here  in  the  place 
of  multis  verbis,  because  of  the  objection  to  the  rhyme  orum  -orum, 
page   35.       The    Genitive    magni    ponderis  is  justified   also,     on 
several  grounds.    First,  the  Genitive  is  logical   for   expressions   of 
weight  (which  is  an  inherent  and  permanent  quality),  as  we  have  re- 
marked at  page  43.     Second,   it  coincides    with    Cicero's  usage, 
which  has,   with  one   exception,  the   metaphorical   expressions   of 
weight  in  the  Genitive.     Thus,  Vatin,  9  boni  viri  iudicent,  id  est 
maximi  momenti  et  ponderis;  Plauc.  4  (merita  Plaucii)  magni  .  . 
ponderis  apud  vos  esse  debere;  Fam.  2,  19,  2  tuae  litterae .  .  maximi 
sunt  apud  me  ponderis;  and  here,  litteras  magni  ponderis.     The  ex- 
ception is  Att.  10,  I,  I  filius  eodem  est  apud  me  pondere.     On  the 
other  hand,  Cicero  uses  twice  grandi  pondere  in  the  Ablative;  Cic. 
Verr.  2,  4,  32,  hydriam  grandi  pondere  and  Nat  Deor.  3,  S$  ami- 
culum  grandi  pondere,  both  times  of  literal  physical  weight. 

Third,  there  is  occasion  here  for  a  variation  from  the  Ablative 
phrase,  which  has  just  been  used,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  and 
Cicero  has  also  sought  this  through  the  use  of  et — quidem.  This 
letter  which  he  is  acknowledging  was,  indeed,  magni  ponderis,  for 
it  was  important,  that  is,  metaphorically  magni  ponderis,  and  it  was 
bulky,  literally  magni  ponderis.  Its  contents  included:  ist,  news  of 
**Quintus  noster  coronatus  ";  2d,  the  jokes  about  Vestorius  and 
Pherionum;  3d,  the  defense  of  Brutus  and  Cassius;  4th,  matters  of  ista 
TioXiriKGotapa)  5th,  Atticus,  counsel  concerning  the  Ides  of  March; 
6th,  news  of  Antonium  de  provinciis  relaturum  (this  might  be  im- 
portant); 7th,  Rapinas  ad  Opis;  8th,  hortaris  me  ut  historias  scribam; 


6o 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


6i 


9th,  de  omnibus  meis  consiliis  ut  sen  bis  .   .   .  fiat;  loth,  quod  me 
cogitare  jubes;   nth,  pleasing  little  postscript. 

15.   Caes.  B.  G.  7,  39  Eporedorix  iEduus,  summo  loco  natus  adu- 

lescens  et  summae  domi  potentiae,  et  una  Viri- 
domarus,  pari  aetate  et  gratia  sed  genere  dispari, 
.  .   .   convenerant. 

Many  considerations  might  be  advanced  here  as  affecting  the  use 
of  Ablative  and  Genitive  respectively.  In  the  first  place  the  Abla- 
tives pari  and  dispari  are  made  necessary  by  the  non-existence  of  the 
Genitive  paris;  see  page  27.  Again,  a  variety  to  the  style  is 
afforded  by  the  alternation  of  constructions.  Again,  had  an  Abla- 
tive summa  domi  potentia  been  used,  the  style  would  not  have  been 
so  clear,  for  after  summo  loco  natus  and  the  co-ordinate  conjunc- 
tion et  another  Ablative  would  not  have  suggested  so  infallibly  the 
different  dependence  of  the  idea  expressed  by  summae  potenti^e. 

16.   Nep.  Dat.  3    Thuyn,    hominem    maximi    corporis  terribilique 

facie,  quod  et  niger  et  capillo  longo  barbaque 
promissa,  optima  veste  texit. 

This  is  another  of  those  examples  which  have  gone  the  rounds 
of  the  grammarians  and  been  used,  in  turn,  to  illustrate  the  views 
of  each. 

To  Draeger  it  shows  no  difference  in  the  meanings  and  appears 
thus  **nur  der  Abwechslungswegen."  To  Zumpt  it  shows  no  sharp 
distinction  between  the  cases. 

To  Kriiger  the  Genitive  appears  as  relating  to  the  very  being  of 
the  man,    the  Ablative  only  to  his  appearance,   readily  alterable. 
Lane  translates  so  as  to  show  the  characterisric  difference  "a  man 
of  gigantic  frame  and  with  an  awe-inspiring  presence. " 

Lupus  comments,  *'Der  Genetivus  und  der  Ablativus  Qualitatis 
stehen  hier  neben  einander  ohne  wesenlichen  Unterschied  des 
Begriffs"  and  later  he  says  the  construction  is  due  ^'nur  dem 
Bedurfniss  der  Abwechslungs. "  In  like  manner  Stegmann  says  (p. 
243):  ''  Nicht  befreunden  kann  ich  mich  mit  subtilen  distinctionen, 
wie  sie  Heraeus,  S.  116,  anm.  2,  gibt,  wenn  er  .  .  .  Nep.  Datam 
14,  3»  I  •  •  .  durch  die  Bemerkung  erklaren  will ;  das  schreckliche 
aussehen  wurde  gemildert,  wenn  er  sich  haupthaar  und  bart  kurz 
schneiden  liesz." 


i 


That  there  is  any  *  *  Bediirfniss  der  Abwechslungs  "  for  the  sake 
of  the  style  here  is  a  thing  difficult  to  see.  On  the  contrary  there 
is  one  fact,  overlooked  by  all  the  commentators,  which  has  abso- 
lutely determined  the  usage  in  one-half  of  this  passage,  and  that  is 
the  form  of  the  word  facie,  as  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
Had  Nepos  desired  to  express  here  an  idea  more  logically  to  be 
expressed  by  the  Genitive  he  would  have  been  driven  to  forsake  his 
desire  by  this  fact  of  form  alone. 

With  the  use  of  facie,  then,  prescribed  from  the  beginning,  if  the 
author  felt  a  distinction  between  Ablative  and  Genitive  he  was  only 
free  to  manifest  it  in  his  use  of  the  Genitive  and  this  manifestation 
seems  to  occur. 

A  Genitive  corporis  is  almost  unknown  to  Latin  literature  before 
Livy,  the  only  instances  at  hand  being  the  one  before  us  and  a 
passage  from  Hor.  Epist.  i,  20,  24  where  the  Genitive  form  is  required 
by  the  metre.  On  the  other  hand,  35  instances  of  the  Ablative 
corpore  can  be  cited  previous  to  Livy  and  almost  as  many  later. 
It  is  remarkable  that  of  all  the  instances  of  corpore  in  the  Ablative  not 
one  has  the  adjective  maximo.  Perhaps  a  reason  for  this  can  be 
found  if  we  consider  some  of  the  adjectives  which  do  appear,  such 
as  these:  albo,  aquilo,  immani,  praestanti,  firmo,  exiguo,  incolumi, 
gravi,  infermo,  aegro,  inculto,  horrido,  magno,  candenti,  fesso, 
insigni,  detorto,  vesco,  decoro,  integro,  adfecto,  obeso,  brevi, 
humili,  minori,  vegeto,  valenti,  salubri,  inlibato. 

All  these  Ablatives  refer  to  the  literal  body.  What,  then,  would 
be  logically  homo  maximo  corpore  ?  The  man  with  the  largest 
body,  in  comparison  with  several  or  all  others.  But  what  is  the 
meaning  in  our  example,  hominem  maximi  corporis?  Lane  has 
rendered  it  a  ' '  man  of  gigantic  frame. "  By  a  simple  rhetorical  figure 
the  size  of  the  body  has  come  to  be  put  for  the  body  itself,  and  the 
figurative  expression  is  put  in  the  Genitive,  just  as  in  the  earlier 
instances,  Fam.  7,  i,  2;  9,  26,  4;  Most.  782;  Men.  100;  Aul.  325, 
and  those  mentioned  on  page  35  ff.  This  difference  between  the 
literal  and  the  figurative  domains  of  the  ideas  gives  a  ground  for  a 
distinction  between  the  use  of  the  Ablative  and  the  Genitive  ideas. 

17.  Sail.  Hist.    2,  16  Maur,=Suet.  de  Gramm.  c.  15;  "  ut  Lenaeus 

.  .  .  Sallustium  historicum,  quod  eum  (scil.  Pom- 
peium)  oris  probi,  animo  inverecundo  scripsisset, 


62 

ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF  QUALITY. 

acerbissima  satira  laceraverit."  (Inc.  75  D.  41 
K.  II,  21  G.  II,  p.  586  Br.)  Praterea'cf. 
Sacerdot  (VI,  p.  46,)  iHud  de  Pompeio,  qui 
colons  erat  rubei,  sed  animi  inverecundi.  Plin. 
VII,  53:  '  Magno  Pompeio  Vibius  quidam  .  .  . 
et  Publicius  fuere  similes  illud  os  probum  red" 
dentes,'  id.  XXXVII  14;  'erat  et  imago  Cr. 
Pompeii  e  margantis  .  .  .  illius  probi  oris  vener- 
andique  per  cuncas  gentes'||  probi]  VLO,  improbi 
N  G  O  Kritz,  sed  illud  legerat  Plinius. 

our'Inn'r!  'T  "T  f  ^"""'''^  '°"*^'^*'  ^"*  »°"^i^  necessaiy  for 
our  understanding  of  the  passage.     Sallust  made  an   epigram  on 

Pompey  of  such  point  that  it  stirred  the  bitter  wrath   of  Zmpey's 
fnend  Len.us,  was  celebrated  for  generations  succeeding  (wTnTs 
Phn.  and  Suet.)  and  was  still   current   three  centuries  la  er  and 
explained  by  Sacerdos. 

This  was  in   accordance  with  Sallust's  well-known  tendency  to 

anety,n  style,  concerning  which  see  Norden,  Antike  Kunstpro S 

I,  ^04,   where,  however,  the   illustration    cited.    Sail.    Cat.,    33     \ 

plenque,  patn*,  sed   omnes  fama  atque  fortuna  expertes,  mus  '  b^ 

replaced,  smce  the  better  reading  is  patria  sede 

bare  fact.     Boldness  of  expression  couples  with  antithesis  of  form 
and  every  rhetorical  device  to  make  the  epigram  effective.     So  it" 

The  "honest  countenance  "  is  set  in  contrast  with  the  shameless 
m  nd     a  contrast  which   Sacerdos   felt   and   expressed   with  sed 

?o  r  tr        7°"*"^*  '"  "'°"«'^*  ''^  ^  -"'-*  -  constr    - 
tions      W.th  regard  to  ons  probi  it  may  be  said  that  such  an  ex- 
pression ,s  figurative,  and  Just  as  the  few  classical  insta^rof  a 
bodily  part  used  figuratively  are  in  the  Genitive,  so  here  appears  1 
Gemt.ve  ons  probi ;  cf.  Cic.  Orat.  85  ;  valentiorum  late^m  Sr  t 
76  plunm.  sanguinis  ;  Fam.  7.  .,  .  non  tui  stomachi ;  Hor  Sa    V 
4,  8  emunct*  nans ;  Epod.  12,  3  „aris  obes.^ ;  Val.  3   Tai  fla!' 
rantissimi  pectoris.  J.  •«.  z  i  nag- 

An  attempted  explanation  of  oris  probi  on  the  basis  that  the  ex- 
pression was  sarcastic  is  discredited  by  Wolfflin,  Archiv.  XI  4  p. 


ABLATIVE    AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


63 


489,  and  will  be  omitted  here.  Besides  the  arguments  there  ad- 
vanced the  following  passage  from  Seneca  seems  also  to  count 
against  the  sarcastic  interpretation.  Epist.  i,  ii,  31  nihil  erat 
mollius  ore  Pompei  numquam  non  coram  pluribus  erubuit. 

18.  Livy  I,    II,    8    Quod    Sabini   aureas  armillas   magni  ponderis 

brachio  laevo  gemmatosque  magna  specie  anulos 
habuerint. 

This  instance  of  the  variation  between  Ablative  and  Genitive  of 
Quality  different  editors  have  differently  accounted  for.  That 
magna  specie  is  adverbial  to  gemmatos  is  unlikely.  That  it  is  re- 
quired merely  for  the  sake  of  variety  in  the  style  is  doubtful.  A  suf- 
ficient reason  for  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  cases  here  is  seen  in  two 
facts,  one  of  which,  at  least,  has  escaped  all  the  editors;  first,  Livy 
is  the  first  writer  to  show  the  evidence  of  that  great  movement  towards 
the  free  use  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality  which  carried  the  immediately 
succeeding  writers  Valerius  and  Velleius  almost  clear  of  the  use  of  any 
Ablatives  of  Quality,  while  making  their  Genitives  so  frequent.  For  the 
effect  of  this  change  in  usage  on  expressions  of  the  idea  of  pondus 
see  page  43.  What  we  need  to  note  here  is  that  ponderis  is 
Livy's  unvaried  usage,  a  usage  apparently  grounded  in  a  perception 
of  a  logical  distinction  between  the  force  of  the  Genitive  and  of  the 
Ablative.  The  second  fact  concerns  specie.  Neither  Livy  nor  any 
other  writer  before  Palladius  (355-395  A.  D.)  recognized  the  per- 
missibility of  a  Genitive  of  Quality  in  place  of  specie,  owing,  as  we 
have  seen  page  23,  to  the  form. 

19.  Liv.  6,  22,  7  Exactae  iam  aetatis  Camillus  erat,  sed  vegetum  in- 

genium  in  vivido  pectore  vigebat,  virebatque  in- 
tegris  sensibus,     .... 

It  seems  too  great  a  stretch  to  regard  integris  sensibus  here  as 
Ablative  of  Quality,  though  under  Golling's  definition  it  might  be 
held  that  it  describes  the  noun  Camillus  rather  than  the  manner  in 
which  he  flourished.  The  use  of  the  Genitive  here  accords  with  the 
general  swing  toward  a  preference  for  expressing  the  Genitive  forms 
of  ideas.  At  an  earlier  day  we  should  have  had  the  form  aetate,  as 
already  remarked  in  connection  with  Cses.  7,  39  and  Verr.  5,  32. 


64 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


V 


20.  Liv.  27,  19,  8  Cum  Afros  venderet  iussu  imperatoris  quaestor 

puerum   adultum   inter  eos  forma  insigni   cum 
audisset  regii  generis  esse  ad  Scipionem  misit. 

Since  the  first  instance  we  have  of  insignis  in  the  Genitive  of 
Quality  occurs  in  Justinus,  and  so  late  as  Tacitus  only  the  Ablative 
form  of  this  adjective  appears,  we  could  hardly  look  for  a  Genitive 
formae  insignis  here,  although  with  an  adjective  of  the  first  decl. 
Livy  could  and  did  use  the  Genitive  formcX,  44,  28  eximia?  equos 
formae,  notwithstanding  all  precedent  to  the  contrary;  cf.  eximia 
forma,  Cic.  Tusc.  5,  61;  Ten  Andr.  72;  Plant.  Stich.,  381;  Merc, 
260,  210,    13. 

The  contrast  between  Ablative  and  Genitive  here  serves  also  a 
rhetorical  purpose  by  distinguishing  between  the  relations  in  which 
the  two  qualities  are  felt  to  stand  towards  their  subject.  Thus,  the 
fact  that  a  grown  boy  furnished  a  noble  exterior  would  not  have 
prevented  his  being  sold  by  the  quaestor,  but  the  fact  that  he 
belonged  to  a  royal  family  was  of  very  different  importance  and 
caused  him  to  be  sent  to  Scipio. 

21.   Liv.   30,   4,  I  Calonum  loco  primos  ordines  spectatte  virtutis 

atque  prudentiae  servili  habitu  mittebat. 

The  Genitive  virtutis  atque  prudentiae  is  logical,  and  for  Livy 
regular,  though  an  earlier  writer  would  probably  have  used  virtute 
atque  prudentia,  as  commented  above  to  Cic.  Fam.  i,  7,  11  and 
Cic.  Phil.  2,  13.  The  juxtaposition  of  two  cases  here  is  brought 
about  by  the  meaning  of  servili  habitu. 

If  the  Ablative  of  Quality  describes  the  subject  at  the  time  of  its 
manifestation,  but  the  Genitive  the  characteristic  which  belongs  to  a 
person,  then  the  Genitive  habitus  would  have  been  distinctly  out 
of  place  here  and  the  Ablative  habitu  altogether  appropriate,  for 
these  soldiers  merely  were  sent  out  in  servile  garb;  they  were  not 
men  of  characteristically  servile  appearance.  A  distinction  between 
habitu  as  clothing  and  habitus  as  the  character  of  the  appearance 
may  be  observed  elsewhere.  Thus,  compare  the  Genitives  in  Val. 
Max.  5,  I,  7  puer  eximiae  formae  et  liberalis  habitus,  and  Plin.,  N.  H. 
35,  114  Gryllum  deridiculi  habitus  with  the  Ablatives  in  Liv.  26,  6, 
II  habitu  Italico;  Tac.  Ann.  4,  59  habitu  tali  repertus  est;  Ann! 
12,  41  puerili  habitu. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


«5 


I 


2  2.  Liv.   31,   21,  6  in  Sabinis  incertus  infans  natus,  masculus  an 

femina  esset,    alter  sedecim  iam  annorum  item 
\j  ambiguo  sexu  inventus. 

The  Genitive  annorum  is  regular  and  unavoidable,  but  the  reason 
i  for  the  use  of  ambiguo  sexu  is  farther  to  seek.  Livy  had  already 
used  the  Genitive  in  26,  34,  5  puberes  virilis  sexus,  and  this  usage  was 
followed  by  Tac,  Ann.  i,  58;  2,  38;  2,  84;  6,  19;  Suet.,  Aug.  loi; 
Fronto,  Strat.  i,  11,  6;  Justin.,  i,  4,  7;  37,  i;  53,  2,  though  the 
earlier  usage  had  been  invariable  in  the  Ablative  That  there  is  any 
physical  difference  between  puer  virilis  sexus  and  puer  virili  sexu 
could  not  be  maintained.  Whether  in  our  passage  there  is  a  sub- 
jective difference  in  the  Latin  similar  to  that  which  one  feels  in  Eng- 
lish between  the  phrases  a  child  sixteen  years  old  of  doubtful  sex  was 
discovered,  and,  a  child  sixteen  years  old  was  discovered  with  its  sex 
doubtful,  may  be  left  for  each  observer  to  determine.  That  there 
is  no  sexus  ambiguus  to  which  a  child  could  belong,  as  he  might 
belong  to  the  sexus  virilis  may  also  be  taken  into  account  here. 

23.  Liv.  ^8,  24,  2  Orgiagontis  reguli  uxor  forma  eximia  custodie- 

batur  inter   plures   captivas;  cui  custodiae   cen- 
turio  praeerat  et  libidinis  et  avaritiae  militaris. 

Forma  eximia  was  from  the  earliest  times  a  set  phrase,  of  sufficient- 
ly frequent  occurrence  to  suggest  its  use  by  Livy,  both  here  and  at  26. 
50,  I.  See  also  the  comment  on  page  64  to  Liv.  27,  19,  8.  The 
growing  preference  for  the  Genitive  forms  is  seen  in  Livy's  use  of 
equos  eximiae  formae  at  44,  28,  and  this  same  preference  appears  in 
the  use  of  libidinis  and  avaritiae  in  our  example. 

24.  Val.  Max.  i,  7. 7  existimavit  ad  se  venire  hominem  ingentis  mag- 

nitudinis,    coloris    nigri,     squalidum    barba    et 
capillo  inmisso. 

The  distinction  here  between  the  use  of  Genitive  and  of  Ablative 
is  entirely  clear.  It  lies  in  the  peculiarity  of  Valerius'  style,  shared 
by  other  writers  of  his  time,  which  led  him  to  throw  every  one  of  his 
*'qualitatis"  ideas  into  the  Genitive  form,  except  in  three  instances; 
I,  I,  Ext.  16  eximia  facie;  3,  2,  23  capite,  umero,  femine  saucio 
oculo  eruta,  and  the  one  before  us,  capillo  inmisso.  Of  these  the 
first  was  impossible  in  the  Genitive  because  of  the  form  of  facie,  as 


66 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


shown  on  pages   i6.     The  other  Ablatives  are  parts  of  the  body 
which  Valerius  never  uses  in  the  Genitive. 

For  defense  of  capillo  inmisso  as  Ablative  of  Quality  and  not 
Ablative  Absolute,  cf.  Golling,  Gym.  VI,  2,  page  43.  In  our 
example  is  further  to  be  noted  the  new  construction  of  squalidum 
barba  =  squalida  barba,  which  offers  an  additional  means  of  variety 
to  the  style  and  of  escape  from  the  old-fashioned  Ablative  of  Quality. 

25.  Piin.  N.  H.  7,  24  choromandarum  gentem  vocat  Tauron  sil- 

vestrem,  sine  voce,  stridoris  horrendi,  hirtis  cor- 
poribus  oculis  glaucis,  dentibus  caninis. 

26.  II,  274  contra   longae  esse  vitae  incurvos  umeris   et  in  manu 

unam  aut  duas  incisuras  longas  habentes  et  plures 
quam  XXXII  dentes  auribus  amplis. 

27.  12,  46  distatquod  sine  cauliculo  est  et  quod  minoribus  foliis 

quodque  radicis  neque  amarae  neque  odoratae. 

28.  12,  56  contorti  esse  caudicis  ramis  aceris  maxime  Pontici. 

29.  25,  74  simplici  caule,  minimis  foliis  floris  copiosi  erumpentis 

cum  uva  maturescit,  odore  non  iniucundo. 

30.  25,  1 10  quae  feniculi  similitudine  candidioribus  foliis  et  minoribus 

hirsutisque,  caule  pedali  recto,  radice  suavissimi 
gustus  et  odoris. 


31.   27,  44  herba  foliis  duns   cineracei  colons, 

longis,  callosis  rubentibus. 


.,   viticulis 


Z2,   27,  ^^  humilis  herba  densis  foliis    fere   papaveris,    minoribus 

tamen     sordidioribusque,     odoris    t^tri    gustus 
amari  cum  adstrictione. 

33.  27,115.  tertium  genus,      .     .     .     uno   caule  densis  geniculis 

et  in    se    infarctis,   foliis   autem  pice«,   radicis 
superaevuae. 

34.  27,  118  Pancratium     .     .     .     foliis  albi  lili  longioribus  cras- 

sioribusque,  radice  bulbi  magni,  colore  rufo. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


67 


35.  27,122    Poterion     ....     languine    spissa,    foliis    parvis, 

rotundis,    et    amulis    longis,    mollibus,   lentis, 
tenuibus,  flore  longo,  herbacei  coloris. 

36.  31,  47  Terra  vero  ipsa  promittit  candicantibus  maculis  aut  tota 

glauci  coloris. 

Before  citing,  in  addition  to  these  twelve  instances  from  Pliny 
eleven  more  which  involve  the  juxtaposition  of  Ablative  and  Geni- 
tive of  Quality,  we  shall  be  able  to  realize  that  we  have  come  upon  an 
author  who  shows  a  new  freedom  in  the  use  of  these  constructions. 
A  two-fold  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  Pliny,  in  the  first  place,  found 
himself  with  a  wavering  tradition  behind  him  regarding  the  use  of 
these  cases.  The  republican  writers  had  used  Ablatives  vastly  in 
the  preponderance.  Writers  after  Livy  had  used  Genitives  almost 
exclusively.  Where  later  usage  had  conflicted  with  earlier,  whose 
authority  was  Pliny  to  follow?  In  the  second  place,  in  a  work 
somewhat  of  the  nature  of  a  descriptive  catalogue,  how  could  Pliny 
resist  the  temptation  to  gain  for  his  style  whatever  variety  was 
possible  by  resorting  to  all  known  expedients  of  change  in  form. 

This  second  point  is  fully  observed  by  Johannes  Miiller,  who 
says  (Stil  des  Aelteren  Plinius  III,  §  181)  ''Bei  einem  Werke  mit 
der  Anlage  und  Behandlungsweise  der  N.  H.  war  fiir  die  Darstellung 
keine  Gefahr  grossere  als  in  Einformigkeit  zu  verfallen,"  and  in  illus- 
tration of  Pliny's  effort  to  avoid  this  danger,  he  devotes  paragraphs 
and  sections  to  *' Wiederholung  desselben  Wortes  nach  kurzem 
Zwischenraume  ";  *  *  Gleichmassiger  Anfang  ";  ' '  Mannigfaltigkeit "; 
''Abwechslung  zwischen.  i.  Sing,  und  PI ;  2.  die  Casus;  3.  Gen. 
od.  abl.  qual.  u.  adj. ;  4.  abl.  qual.  u.  relationis ;  5.  abl.  qual.  od. 
adj.   u.   Dat.  des  Besitzes  oder  habere, "  etc. ,  etc. 

He  says  (§  22,  2):  *'Speciell  die  Abwechslung  zwischen  Gen.  u. 
Abl.  qual.,  bei  den  Aelteren  Schriftstellern  durchaus  selten  auch  bei 
den  spateren  nicht  haufig,  ist  dem  Plinius  ganz  Gelaufig. " 

Under  such  circumstances  we  shall  expect  to  find  the  difference 
between  the  two  cases  pressed  to  its  lowest  point  and  every  subject- 
ive discrimination  sunk  occasionally  under  the  desire  for  variety. 
Yet  even  in  Pliny  the  instances  show  the  cases  not  used  with  entire 
indifference.  For  instance,  Pliny  uses,  as  the  examples  cited  above 
all  show,  only  the  Ablative  in  the  plural.     The  only  exception  is 


i\ 


J 1 


'■  ^ 


68 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


37.  21,  23nec    ulli  florum  excelsitas    maior,  interdum    cubitorum 

trium,  languido  semper  collo  et  non  sufficient! 
capitis  oneri. 

where  the  construction  is  one  of  Measure  the  use  of  which  in  the 
Genitive  was  uniform.  See  note  to  Cic.  N.  D.,  2,  48  above  and 
to  Livy  31,  12. 

Again,  grammatical  clearness  sometimes  required  the  use  of  one 
or  the  other  construction.  Thus  with  Nos.  29,  radice  suavissimi 
gustus  et  odoris;  30,  foliis  cineracei  coloris;  31,  foliis  odoris 
taetri  gustus  amari;  33,  radice  bulbi  magni,  and  35,  flore  herbacei 
coloris,  compare. 

38.  12,  47  radice  galli  nardi  semine  acinosum,  saporis  calidi. 

39.  12,  56  folio  piri,  minore  dumtaxat  et  herbidi  coloris. 
^40.   21,  25  gemino  caule,  carnosiore  radice  maiorisque  bulbi. 

In  the  last  example,  for  instance,  a  maioreque  bulbo  would  modify 
not  radice,  as  here  intended,  but  the  same  subject  which  caule  and 
radice  modify,  and  it  is  in  just  the  same  way  that  in  No.  25  above 
the  Genitive  stridoris  horrendi  after  sine  voce  frees  the  style  from 
grammatical  obscurity.  These  two  requirements  of  Ablatives  for  the 
plural  and  the  forced  use  of  cases  for  grammatical  distinctness  ac- 
count for  the  use  of  all  the  Ablatives  and  Genitives  in  Nos.  31  and 
34. 

Add  to  these  the  fact  that  Pliny  always  puts  parts  of  the  human 
body,  like  collo,  capite,  dorso,  ore  (except  illius  probi  oris)  barba, 
capillo,  auribus,  pedibus,  oculis,  dentibus,  in  the  Ablative,  and  that 
he  seems  to  feel  sometimes  the  analogy  with  parts  of  the  human 
body  of  parts  of  vegetables'  bodies,  as  caule,  folio,  ramis,  bacis, 
cortice,  frutice,  and  we  shall  thus  have  accounted  also  for  Nos.  30, 
36  and  40.  Curious  to  observe  is  that  flore  and  radice,  which 
ought  to  come  in  the  above  list,  show  exceptions;  flore  twice, 
against  its  regular  use  in  the  Ablative  twenty  times;  and  radice 
thrice,  against  its  regular  use  twenty-one  times  in  the  Ablative. 
Still  more  curious  is  that  each  one  of  these  five  exceptions  occurs 
where  the  Genitive  is  in  juxtaposition  with  an  Ablative.  These  ex- 
ceptions appear  in  Nos.  27,  29  and  33  above  and  the  two  following 
passages: 


» 


1^ 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


69 


41.  19,  1 2  7  purpuream  maximae  radicis  Csecilianam  vocant;  rotun- 

dum  vero  minima  radice  darvri'da, 

42.  21,  154  candidum  radice  lignosa,  in  coUibus  nascens,     .     .     . 

alterum  nigrius  florisque  nigri. 

Another  exception  to  be  mentioned  here  is  that  shown  by  the 
Genitive  contorti  caudicis  of  No.  28  above. 

It  would  be  drawing  the  distinction  too  fine  to  say  that  both 
flore  and  radice,  above,  were  potential  parts  of  the  plant's  body 
rather  than  actually  manifest  parts;  that  is,  that  a  plant  could  be 
flore  nigro  only  when  in  bloom,  but  at  other  times  quite  as  well 
floris  nigri,  and  radice  lignosa  when  the  root  could  be  observed,  but 
radicis  neque  amarae  nee  odoratae  even  when  it  had  to  be  dug  for. 
Such  a  distinction,  however,  would  not  be  without  analogy.  Take, 
for  example,  the  Genitive Jn  No.  25  above.  Longae  vitas  refers  to  a 
long  life  predicted  and  yet  to  come,  but  not  actually  present,  and 
it  might  be  applied  to  a  youth  of  twenty.  This  would  certainly  not 
be  true  of  longa  vita.  A  point  at  which  Pliny  seems  to  have  allowed 
his  choice  of  Ablative  or  Genitive  to  be  aff"ected  by  declensional 
form  is  apparent  in  this  use  of  coloris  and  colore.  With  14  in- 
stances of  coloris  facing  16  instances  of  colore  it  would  seem  bold 
to  assert  that  Pliny  made  a  distinction  between  them,  until  we  com- 
pare the  instances.  When,  however,  we  place  beside  cineracei 
coloris  (No.  31)  and  herbacei  coloris  (No.  36)  the  following  two 
examples: 

43.  26,    37  radix    .     .     coloris  intus  herbacei  crassitudine  digiti 

minimi. 

44.  27.  125  femina  magis  herbacei  coloris  caule  tenui. 

we  get  the  suggestion  that  the  form  of  adjective  stems  in  eo  may 
have  constituted  a  source  of  distinction  in  Pliny's  mind.  By  the 
side  of  these  instances  are  to  be  placed  the  following:  24,  33  mellei 
coloris;  ^J,  170  aurei  coloris;  27,  83  crocei  coloris;  37,  51  coloris 
aurei. 

Now,  over  against  these  set: 

45.  10,  8  ha^c  facit  ut  quintum  genus  yvrfaiov  vocetur  velut  verum 

solumque  incorruptae  originis,  media  magnitud- 
ine,  colore  subrutilo,  rarum  conspectu. 


70 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


71 


(  1 


and  with  this  compare  the  colore  rufo  of  No.  34  above  and  the 
whole  list  of  adjectives  appearing  with  colore,  as  follows;  adusto, 
inclinato  ad,  herbido,  languido,  subnitilo,  medio,  livido,  langues- 
cente,  subnifo.  If  the  list  stopped  here,  the  distinction  above  sug- 
gested would  be  clear  enough.  There  are  at  hand,  however,  two 
more  Ablatives  which  must  be  mentioned;  16,  43  liquoris  melleo 
colore,  where  the  Ablative  is  perhaps  suggested  by  the  need  of 
grammatical  clearness,  and  ^y,  170  Idaei  dactyli  in  Creta  ferreo 
colore  pollicem  humanum  exprimunt,  where  the  Ablative,  if  not 
dependent  upon  exprimunt,  can  only  be  called  an  exception. 

Before  passing  to  the  next  example,  observe  again,  in  No.  45, 
the  distinction  between  the  relation  of  the  Genitive  and  that  of  the 
Ablatives  to  their  subject.  This  yvjJGiov  is  the  true  and  only  per- 
cnopterus  of  pure  breed.  It  has  moderate  size  and  a  color  towards 
the  reddish,  and  so  may  a  dozen  other  kinds  of  percnopteri;  but 
this  is  the  only  one  of  pure  breed.  The  distinction  in  idea  is  met 
with  a  distinction  in  case. 

Three  instances  from  Pliny  remain  to  be  cited: 

46.   9,  54  scorpionis  effigie  aranei  magnitudinis. 

We  find  no  example  of  effigie  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  and  may 
conclude,  therefore,  that  like  faciei  and  speciei  it  was  avoided. 
Had  the  form  effigiei  been  in  use,  Pliny  might  have  introduced  here 
into  the  language  in  place  of  scorpionis  the  adjective  scorpionius, 
instead  of  at  20,  8,  where  it  does  occur  for  the  first  time. 

47-    18,  37  L.  Tarius  Rufus  infima  natalium  humilitate  consulatum 

militari   industria   meritus   antiquae  alias  parsi- 
moniae. 

Apparently  an  instance  of  balanced  interchange  between  Abla- 
tive, adjective,  and  Genitive.  Others  see  in  the  Ablative,  however, 
not  an  Ablative  of  Quality,  but  of  separation. 

Other  phrases  showing  a  genirive,  singular  or  plural,  dependent 
upon  an  Ablative  of  Quality  are    found   elsewhere;  for   instance: 

Tac.  Ann.  4,  44  multa  claritudine  generis. 
Hist.  4,  1 5  claritate  natalium  insigni. 

Antiquse  parsimoniae  would  have  appeared  only  in  the  Ablative 
before  the  beginning  of  Silver  Latin,  which  for  our  construction 
must  begin  with  Livy. 


48.  8,  214  Sunt   ibices  pernicitatis   mirandae,   quamquam  onerato 

capite  vastis  cornibus. 

That  the  quality  of  pernicitas  is  related  to  ibices  in  a  different 
way  from  that  of  capite  onerato  may  afford  a  distinction  of  ideas 
sufficient  to  warrant  a  difference  in  case.  iX 

49.  Tac.  Hist.    I,  14  Piso  M.   Crasso  et  Scribonia  genitus,  nobilis 

utrimque,  vultu  habituque  moris  antiqui. 

If  the  interpretation  of  moris  antiqui  as  a  genitive  dependent  on 
vultu  habituque  could  be  defended,  we  should  have  here  a  Genitive 
of  Quality  lying  within  the  Ablative  phrase  and  forming  a  part  of 
it.  Grammatical  clearness  would  be  aided  by  the  Genitive  moris 
antiqui  instead  of  a  more  antiquo,  which,  however,  for  another  rea- 
son, would  never  occur,  namely,  that  antiqui  moris,  like  cibi 
minimi  (cf.  No.  i)  and  impetus  antiqui  (Ann.  13,  54),  is  a  phrase 
of  special  sense  and  somewhat  figurative  application,  of  a  kind 
which  appears  in  the  Genitive  only. 

In  our  passage,  however,  such  an  interpretation  will  not  be  held. 
Vultu  and  habitu  depend  upon  moris  antiqui,  and  we  should  trans- 
late * '  of  the  old  school  in  look  and  appearance. " 

50.  Hist.  2,  64  et  pari  probitate  mater  Vitelliorum,  Sextila,  antiqui 

moris. 

The  invariable  use  of  pari  in  the  Ablative  has  been  noted  already 
on  page  27.  For  moris  in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  see  the  last 
example.  Kugera  in  his  treatise  ''Uber  die  Taciteische  Incon- 
cinnitat, "  fails  to  observe  this  instance. 

5 1.  Hist.  4,  1 5  Erat  in  Caninefatibus  stolidae  audaciae  Brinno,  clari- 

tate natalium  insigni. 

Heraeus  reads  insignis,  (insigni]  insignis  Gottl.  Keissling  u.  Wurm), 
but  without  sufficient  authority.  The  frequency  of  such  Ablatives  as 
claritate  with  a  dependent  Genitive  is  commented  on  above,  at  No.  46. 
The  history  of  audaciae  illustrates  what  has  been  said  above,  page  14, 
concerning  the  development  of  constructions.  Cicero  said  audacia, 
Clu.  64,  Semper  singulari  fuit  audacia;  Fam.  15,  4,  10  his  erant 
finitimi  pari  scelere  et  audacia  Tebarani  (though  in  both  these  in- 
stances  the  Genitive  of  the  adjectives  used,   singularis  and  paris, 


72 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


would  have  been  avoided);  Att.  7,  7,  6  tanta  auctoritate  dux,  tanta 
audacia.  Sallust  begins  the  use  of  the  Genitive,  Cat.  18,  adulescens 
nobilis,  summae  audaciae,  which  Seneca,  of  course,  takes  up,  Cont. 
I,  2,  3  cuius  audaciae  es,  puella  ?  Tacitus  had  behind  him  a  divided 
tradition  and  in  this  instance  uses  the  Genitive.  Gellius  shows  his 
archaistic  tendency  by  returning  to  the  earlier  form;  15,  9,  3  quanta 
licentia  audaciaque  Caecilius  hie  fuit? 

The  aim  at  contrast  in  this  passage,  observed  by  Ku(;era  and 
ascribed  in  general  to  Tacitus  by  Draeger,  Gantrelle,  Zernial  and 
indeed  by  all  writers,  is  not  to  be  disputed  here. 

52.   Ann.   4,  29  cum  primores  civitatis     .     .     Lentulus  senectutis 

extremae,  Tubero  defecto  corpore. 

How  great  a  subjective  difference  there  may  have  been  to  Tacitus 
between  Lentulus  senectutis  extremae  and  a  supposable  Lentulus 
senectute  extrema  cannot  be  shown.  The  evident  intention  for  con- 
trast, however,  can  be  made  apparent. 

The  general  increase  of  Tacitus'  fondness  for  contrast  seen  in  the 
Annals  has  been  pointed  out  by  Wolfflin,  Philol.  25,  121  ff.  In  the 
passage  before  us  the  Ablative,  Tubero  defecto  corpore,  was  a  fore- 
gone conclusion,  for,  aside  from  a  half  dozen  instances  from  Livy  and 
the  two  Senecas,  scarcely  an  example  of  the  Genitive  corporis  can 
be  found  before  Tacitus  (cf.  also  note  to  No.  15).  Tacitus  himself 
has  invariably  followed  the  early  usage:  thus  Hist.  2,  32  fluxis 
corporibus;  4,  46  intecto  corpore;  4,  77  intecto  corpore;  Ann.  2,  73 
corpore  decoro,  genere  insigni;  2,  75,  defesso  luctu  et  corpore 
aegro;  6,  46  fesso  corpore;  11,  36  is  modesta  iuventa,  sed  corpore 
insigni;   14,  17  trunco  per  vulnera  corpore;   15,  34  corpore  detorto. 

But  Tacitus'  custom  is  to  express  the  idea  of  aetas,  also  with  the 
Ablative;  thus  Hist.  3,  33  exacta  aetate  feminas;  3,  67  fessa  «tate 
parens;  4,  42  nondum  senatoria  aetate;  Ann.  i,  46  Augustum  fessa 
aetate;  2,  39  aetate  et  forma  haut  dissimili;  2,  60  septingenta  milia 
aetate  militari;  5,  i  mortem  obiit,  aetate  extrema;  5,  10  haud  dis- 
pari  aetate;  6,  11  quamquam  provecta  aetate;  12,  42  Vitellius  vali- 
dissima  gratia,  aetate  extrema;  15,  38  fessa  (fessorum  Joh.  Miiller) 
aetate. 

It  would  have  been  simple  for  Tacitus  to  have  said  here  Lentulus 
extrema  aetate,  as  he  did  say  extrema  aetate  Ann.  5,  i  and  12,  42, 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


73 


for  this  would  have  expressed  no  very  different  fact  about  Lentulus; 
but  he  sought  variety  in  style  and  so,  after  the  analogy  of  other 
abstracts  in  the  Genitive  he  introduced  here  the  new  phrase 
senectutis  extremae. 


53.  Ann.  6,  5  Exim  Cotta  Messalinus,  saevissimae  cuiusque  sententiae 

auctor  eoque  inveterata  invidia  ubi  primum 
facultas  data,  arguitur  pleraque  in  C.  Caesarem 
quasi  incertcC  virilitatis. 

The  contrast  between  Ablative  and  Genitive  here  is  not  so  marked 
because  they  are  not  so  closely  bound  together  in  the  construction 
of  the  sentence,  yet  each  in  its  place  seems  justified.  Thus,  we 
should  distinguish  between  the  hatred  which  others  feel  against 
Cotta  and  which  he  '*has"  because  they  put  it  upon  him,  and  a 
hatred  which  Cotta  feels  because  it  is  a  characteristic  of  his  nature. 
The  latter  would  appear  in  the  Genitive,  but  the  former  idea  is  that 
which  Livy  intends  to  convey. 

54.  Ann.  4,  61  Q.   Haterius,  familia  senatoria,  eloquentiae  quoad 

vixit  celebratae; 

The  abstract  qualities  of  this  and  the  two  following  examples  are 
not  unnatural  in  the  Genitive.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that 
Tacitus  said  also,  Ann.  4,  48  Balbus,  truci  eloquentia. 

55.  Ann.  6,  15  Calibus  ortus  patre  atque  avo  consularibus,  cetera 

equestri  familia,  mitis  ingenio  et  comptae  facun- 
diae. 

Contrast  here  is  carried  out  completely,  through  the  use  of 
mitis  ingenio,  instead  of  a  possible  miti  ingenio,  and  of  comptae 
facundiae  instead  of  a  possible  compta  facundia. 

56.  Ann.  6,   31   Sinnaces,   insigni    familia  ac  perinde  opibus,    et 

proximus  huic  Abdus  ademptae  virilitatis. 

The  preference  of  Tacitus  for  the  Ablative  of  the  plurals  accords 
with  that  of  the  early  writers  and  puts  opum  instead  of  opibus  out 
of  the  question.  The  occurrence  of  the  Genitive  of  the  adjective 
insignis  in  Justinus  makes  us  doubt  whether  Tacitus  would  have 
felt  an  inclination  to  avoid  its  use  here. 


74 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


75 


57.  Ann.  5,  I  Julia  Augusta  mortem  obiit,  aetate  extrema,  nobili- 

tatis  per  Claudiam  familiam  et  adoptione  Livio- 
rum  Juliorumque  clarissimae. 

Again  the  Ablative  aetate  extrema,  the  use  of  which  has  been 
illustrated  in  the  note  to  No.  52.  Here  it  seems  as  much  an  ''in" 
case  as  a  ''with  "  case.  The  Genitive  contrasted  with  it  is  again  an 
abstract  quality.  We  observe  once  more  the  evidence  of  Tacitus' 
fondness  for  contrast  in  the  setting  off  of  per  with  the  accusative 
against  adoptione,  an  Ablative  of  Means. 

S^.  Ann.  12,  2  Ne   femina  experta^  fecunditatis,   integra  iuventa, 

claritudinem  Ccesarum  aliam  in  domum  ferret. 

*'A  woman  of  proved  fertility,  with  her  youthful  vigor  still 
unbroken."  The  speaker's  attitude  is  different  towards  the  two 
qualities,  the  fecundity  being  looked  upon  as  the  attribute  which 
determines  the  character  of  the  woman. 

59.  Ann.  13,  54  Quod  comiter  a  visentibus  exceptum,  quasi  im- 
petus antiqui  et  bona  cemulatione.  Nero  etc. 
II  iemulatione  codd. ;  aemulatio  Rhenanus  ||. 

Says  Furneau,  ad  loc. :  "So  Halm  and  Nipperdey  after  Rhen- 
anus instead  of  the  Med.  aemulatione  (the  ne  being  supposed  to 
have  arisen  out  of  a  repetition  of  the  following  word).  Others  re- 
tain the  Med.  But  here  the  gen.  is  not  strictly  that  of  quality  and 
the  abl.  could  hardly  be  other  than  causal,  and  we  should  have  to 
explain  the  sentence  (with  Gron.)  as  'quasi  impetus  antiqui  esset, 
et  aimulatione  bona  fieret. ' " 

Draeger,  on  the  other  hand,  reads  aemulatione  and  cites  this  in- 
stance (Stil  des  Tac,  §  283)  as  an  example  of  co-ordination  of  Abla- 
tive and  Genitive  of  Quality,  which  is  the  view  held  also  by  Em. 
Jacob  in  his  Edition  (Paris,  1875).  Ku(;era,  by  omitting  this  passage 
from  his  list,  seems  to  follow  Halm's  reading  and  this  is,  most  re- 
cently, the  view  adopted  by  Constans  in  his  edition  (Paris,  1898). 

To  the  majority  Rhenanus'  conjecture  seems  to  furnish  the  easier 
reading  and  if  we  adopt  it  our  example  disappears. 

60.   Ann.  15,  ^2>  ad  hoc  lamenta  paventium  feminarum;  fessa  jetate 

aut  rudis  pueritiae  [aetas]  jjpueritiae  Jac.   Grono- 


<* 


vius;    pueritiae   aetas    (fessa    aut   rudis   pueritiae 
setas.     Lipsius,  fessa  aut  rudis  aetas  Haase\, 

The  latest  editors  seem  agreed  with  Halm  in  regarding  [aetas]  as 
a  gloss.  Draeger,  ad  loc.  comments:  "Diepaventes  zerfallen  in 
drei  klassen;  Weiber,  Greise  und  Kinder.  Ablativ  und  Generiv  der 
Eigenschaft  hiingen  also  als  appositionen  von  paventium  ab,  ebenso 
wie  feminarum."  Under  this  interpretarion  the  passage  would 
illustrate  Tacitus'  tendency  to  contrast,  showing  three  different 
styles  of  expression  for  three  appositional  ideas.  It  is  simpler,  how- 
ever, to  accept  the  interpretation  suggested  by  Halm's  punctuation 
and  regard  rather  setate  and  pueritice  as  appositional  to  feminarum. 

Fessa  aetate  is  for  Tacitus  a  regular  construction  (cf.  No.  51). 
Rudis  pueririce  on  the  other  hand  is  unusual,  this  phrase  not  being 
found  elsewhere. 

61.  Fronto.  ad  M.  Caes.  2,  5  (p.  30  Naber)  Satis  ne  ego  audaci  con- 

silio  et  iudicio   temerario  videar,  cum  de  tantae 
gloriae  viro  existimo. 

The  Ablatives  denote  the  qualities  with  which  the  subject  mo- 
mentarily appears  and  we  might  easily  see  here  an  illustration  of 
Kriiger's  distincrion  between  the  Ablarive,  showing  the  subject  "  wie 
er  sich  zeigt"  and  the  Genitive,  "wie  er  ist." 

We  should  observe  here,  however,  that  whereas  Fronto  might 
say  Polemon  fuit  tanta  gloria,  we  should  hardly  find  him  saying 
de  tanta  gloria  viro,  for  after  de  the  Ablarive  gloria  would  be  confus- 
ing. This  limitation  upon  the  use  of  the  Ablarive  has  been  noted 
already  at  page  68. 

62.  Gell.  I,  15,  19  Huiusmodi  autem  loquacitatem  verborumque 

turbam  magnitudine  inani  vastam. 

If  we  interpret  magnitudine  inani  with  either  verborum  or  turbam 
^_  verborum  inanissimorum  turbam  or  verborum  turbam  inanissi- 
mam)  we  have  an  instance  of  its  juxtaposirion  as  Ablative  of  Quality 
with  the  Genirive  huiusmodi.  This  would  offer  no  peculiarity,  as 
the  Genitive  would  be  a  compound  of  modi,  and  the  Ablative  a 
descriprive  case,  which,  though  it  would  appear  in  the  Genirive  in 
Val.  Max,  or  Seneca,  is  used  exclusively  in  the  Ablarive  by  Gellius, 


76 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


iriLi'  '°'  ^'  ''  "'"'*'^**"^  ^''  ■•^'"™  to  the  style  of  the  earlier 

is  no*"!  °"  '''".K? "'  *''"'''  ''"  •"^"P''*  magnitudine  with  vastam  it 
IS  no  longer  Ablafve  of  Quality,  and  the  example  falls  out. 

63-  3,  16,  4  Caecilius,  quum  faceret  eodem  nomine  et  eiusdem  ar- 

gumenti  comcediam. 

sion^< «  f '^""T"  '"^u  '^"'''  "'  '"^J<="'""  "^ '"  th^  English  expres- 
Ye^as.m.lanty  of  contents  does  seem  deeper  than  a  similarity  in 

64.   9.  4.  6  qua  fuisse  facie  Cyclopas  poet«  ferunt,  alios  item  esse 

homines  apud  eandem  c^Ii  plagam   singulari* 
velocitatis. 

alre^y'  '"""""'''"'^  °^  ^^"^  «^'''«f  *<>  ^t^  fo™  has  been  noted 
as  Hirtms  B.  G.  8,  36,  summae  velocitatis  homines. 

65.   9,  4,  9  esse  .   .  homines  .  .  caninis  capitibus  .  .  atque  esse  .  . 

homines  .  .  vivacissims  pernicitatis;   quosdam 
etiam  esse  nullis  cervicibus. 

Capitibus  and  cervicibus  are  parts  of  the  body  and  plural,  so  of 

66.   14,  2,  6  hominem  esse  non  bonae  rei  vitaque  turpi  et  sordida 

convictumque  .  . 

and  Cato'o*t '''"'"''"'  ^' ^''"*-   ^"'=''-  7^°  ""'»  ^^^  primus 
andCato  Ong.  Frg.  141,  nulli  pro  nullius]  qui  tantisper  nulli  rei 

Others  interpret  as  a  dative ;  thus  cf.  homo  frugi. 
writei'  ^^^^"^'^  '"'  ■'  "'°  ^^'"'"'^^^"t  °^  the  usage  of  early 


ABLATIVE   AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


77 


^  ■> 


67-    i7>  9»  7  surculi  duo  erant  teretes,  oblonguli,  pari  crassamento 

eiusdemque  longitudinis. 

The  use  of  pari  and  not  paris  is  determined  by  its  form,  cf.  page 
27.  Longitudinis  is  an  abstract  and  is  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Genitive;  cf.  Gell.  Index  Cap.  7,  3  de  serpente  invisitatae  longitu- 
dinis (where  the  Ablative  after  de  would  have  been  less  clear)  and 
Liv.  31,  39,  II  rumpise  ingentis  longitudinis. 

The  lack  of  any  very  clear  distinction  here  between  the  relations 
to  surculi  of  crassamento  and  longitudinis  suggests  the  notion  that 
the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter,  might  have  stood  in  the  Genitive, 
except  for  lack  of  the  form  paris. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  perhaps  discern  an  aim  after  variety 
in  the  choice  of  the  noun  form  crassamento  in  place  of  the  far  more 
common  crassitudine  which  would  have  given  an  ending  so  like  that 
of  longitudinis. 

68.  17,  19,  3  nam  cum,  inquit,  animadverterat  hominem  pudore 

amisso,  importuna  industria,  corruptis  moribus, 
audacem,  ....  istiusmodi  hominem  cum  viderat. 

For  istiusmodi  cf.  note  to  No.  2.     For  industria,  notes  to  Nos. 
I  and  10;  pudore,  to  Nos.  6  and  23;  moribus,  to  No.  49. 

69.  19,  9,  I  Adulescens  e  terra  Asia  de  equestri  loco,  Isetse  indolis 

moribusque  et  fortuna  bene  ornatus  et  ad  rem 
musicam  facili  ingenio  ac  lubenti,  cenam  dabat. 

Here  are  five  circumstances  narrated  of  this  young  man,  each  in 
a  different  construction  !  That  indolis  should  be  in  the  Genitive  is 
logical.  Ingenio,  on  the  other  hand,  is  affected  by  the  history  of 
its  own  past,  cf.  page  54.  Gellius  shows  here  his  archaistic  tend- 
ency, having  always  the  Ablative  ingenio,  never  the  Genitive  ingenii. 
Cf.  I,  5,  3;  2,  18,  3;  4,  15,  2;  6  (7),  3,  8;  10,  18,  6;  12,  4,  i; 
i3>  25,  21;   13,  30,  3;  17,  15,  2;   19,  8,  6;   19,  9,  I. 

70.  19,  9,  2  Antonius  Julianus  rhetor  .   .  Hispano  ore  florentisque 

homo  facundiae  et  rerum  litterarumque  veterum 
peritus. 


78 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE   AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


79 


Again,  three  descriptive  phrases,  each  in  a  different  construction. 
But  observe,  the  part  of  the  body,  ore,  is  set  as  usual  in  the  Abla- 
tive, as  also  ore  in  i,  19,  8  Tarquinius  ore  iam  serio  atque  attentiore 
animo  fuit.     The  abstract  quality  is  again  in  the  Genitive. 

Before  our  next  instance  after  Gellius  there  is  a  break  of  over  a 
hundred  years,  and  the  general  observation  is  called  for  that  in  that 
time  a  change  in  usage  took  place  by  way  of  limitation  in  the  Abla- 
tive.      The   Scriptores    Historiae   Augustie,    Aurelius  Victor    and 
Eutropius  furnish  many  instances  of  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  few  of 
the  Ablative.     The  first  volume  of  Kroll  and  Skutsch's  new  edition 
of  Firmicus  Maternus  offers,  it  is  true,  30  Ablatives,  but  of  these 
two-thirds  are  in  the  plural  and  the  others,  with  four  exceptions, 
relate  to  the  body  and  its  description.     Palladius  has  83  Ablatives! 
35   of  which  are  plurals  and  the   rest  comprise  crassitudine  and 
genitive  pedum,  latitudine,  and  the  like;  parts  of  the  body;  forma, 
facie,  grano,   caule,  folio,   flore  and  once,  corpore,  besides  two  in- 
stances of  hoc  genere;  practically  all,  therefore,  relating  to  bodily 
description.     The  Periochse  of  Livy  contain  only  Genitives.     Of 
the  Scriptores  Physiognomici,  who  deserve  mention  because  of  their 
abundant  use  of  the  constructions  in  hand,  Bartholomeus  de  Mes- 
sana  has  only  one  Ablative,  and  there  a  variant  reading,  but  many 
Genitives;  while   Polemo  and  the  others   have   Ablatives  within  a 
limited  range  only.     The  perception  of  a  difference  in  feeling  be- 
tween Ablative  and  Genitive,  by  which  a  writer  could  convey  a  sub- 
jective distinction  with  regard  to  the  object,  seems  to  have  decayed 
and  usage  seems  to  have  moved  along  other  lines. 

We   see   the   illustration  of  this   in  the  four  examples  which 
Lessing  quotes  (Studien,  p.  26  ff.). 

71.   S.  H.  A.  Hadr.  10,  6  Nulli  vitem  nisi  robusto  et  bonse  fama^ 

daret  nee  tribunum  nisi  plena  barba  faceret  aut 
eius  aetatis,  quae     .    .     . 


72.   Ant.  Pi.  2,  I 


Fuit  vir  forma  conspicuus  [ingenio]  clarus  mori- 
bus,  Clemens  nobilis  vultu  placidus;  ingenio 
singulari  eloquentiae  nitida?  litteraturae  pra^cipuce 
II  ingenio  cum  Reg.  del  S.  ingens  Kellerbauer, 
page  623,  singularis  B^  exc.2  M  distinxit  S.jj 


'j^.   Pesc.  6,  5  Fuit  statura  prolixa  forma  decorus  capillo  in  verti- 

cem  ad  gratiam  reflexo,  vocis  canorae  .  .  oris 
verecundi  et  semper  rubidi,  cervice  adeo  nigra. 

74.  Tyr.  30,  15  fuit  vultu   subaquilo,   fusci   coloris,    oculis   supra 

modum  vigentibus  nigris,  spiritus  divini  venus- 
tatis  incredibilis. 

Observe  that  all  the  parts  of  the  body  here  expressed  are  in  the 
Ablative  and  all  the  Ablatives  express  parts  of  the  body;  except  in 
No.  71,  ingenio  singulari,  where  there  is  a  variant  singularis,  and 
in  No.  73  oris  verecundi,  which  seems  a  reminiscence  of  Sallust's 
famous  epigram,  cf  note  to  No.  16,  and  observe  that  the  adjective 
rubidus  in  this  connection  accords  with  the  phrase  of  Sacerdos, 
cited  at  page  62,  coloris  erat  rubei,  though  it  is  uncertain  that 
Sacerdos  was  earlier  than  the  writer  of  our  passage,  Spartianus. 

Ingenio  in  the  Ablative  is  supported  by  the  regular  usage,  early 
and  late,  as  noted  to  No.  8. 

75.  Firm.  Mat.  3,  3,  10  faciet  honestis  moribus  homines  et  moder- 

atae  dignitatis. 

76.  3,  10,  9  faciet     .     .     longioris  vitas  et  bonce  securi- 

tatis  et  bonis  consiliis  ac  moribus  et  qui     . 

yy.  4,  19,  5  faciet  homines    .     .     bonos  graves,  boni 

consilii  .  .  et  qui  .  .  corpore  erunt  .  . 
languidi  et  frigido  ventri  .  .  sed  circa  uxores 
et  filios  erunt  alieno  semper  affectu. 

The  Ablatives  accord  with  the  usage  of  the  time,  being,  with  the 
exception  of  affectu,  either  plurals,  corpore,  or  parts  of  the  body. 
Affectu  seems  to  be  understood  as  a  transitory  quality,  but  the  dis- 
tinction between  transitory  and  permanent  qualities  is  at  this  late 
period  no  longer  commonly  felt.  *'Longioris  vitce  et  bonse  securi- 
tatis  et  bonis  consiliis  ac  moribus  "  seems  like  a  translation  of  three 
Greek  adjectives,  perhaps  /.(aHpo/SicDrepovs  and  two  compounds 
with  €v.  A  genitive  morum  could  not  appear  for  the  reasons 
already  mentioned  on  page  $7.  Firmicus  has  moribus  elsewhere; 
3»  2,  20;  3,  7,  8. 


8o 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF    QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


8i 


78.  Aurel.  Vic.  Caes.  18  Hie  doctrinae  omnis  ac  moribus  antiquissi- 

mus. 

Observe,  again,  the  ablative  plural  moribus.     Doctrinae  omnis, 
sounds  like  a  translation  of  jtoXDiarcop, 

79.  Pallad.  3,  26,  I  legendi  sunt  vasti  et  ampli  corporis  sed  rotundi 

potius  quam  longi,  ventre  et  clunibus  magnis, 
rostro  brevi,  cervice  glandulis  spissa. 

80.  4,  II,  2  ut  sint  boves  novelli,  quadratis  et  grandibus  membris 

et  solidi  corporis,  musculis  ac  toris  ubique  sur- 
gentibus  magnis  auribus,  latse  frontis  et  crispae, 
labris  oculisque  nigrantibus  cornibus  robustis  ac 
sine  curvutune  pravitate  lunatis,  patulis  naribus 
et  resimis,  cervice  torosa  atque  conpacta,  palae- 
aribus  largis  et  circa  genua  fluentibus  pectore 
grandi,  armis  vastis,  ventre  non  parvo,  porrectis 
lateribus,  latis  lumbis,  dorso  recto  et  piano, 
cruribus  solidis,  nervosis,  et  brevibus,  ungulis 
magnis,  caudis  longis  ac  setosis,  pilo  totius  cor- 
poris denso  ac  brevi,  rubei  maxime  coloris  aut 
fusci. 

81.  4,  II,  4  ut  sint  alti  atque  ingentibus  membris,  eetatis  mediae  et 

magis  .  .  torva  facie,  parvis  cornibus,  torosa 
vastaque  cervice,  ventri  substricto. 

83.  4,  II,  5  sed  eligemus  forma  altissima  corporis  longi  uteri  capacis 

et  magni,  alta  fronte,  oculis  nigris  et  grandibus, 
pulcris  cornibus,  et  praecipue  nigris,  aure  setosa, 
palearibus  et  caudis  maximis,  ungulis  brevibus  et 
cruribus  nigris  et  parvis,  aetatis  maxime  trimae, 
quia,  etc. 

83.  4,  14,  I  equam  magni  corporis,  solidis  ossibus  et  forma  egregia 

debet  eligere. 

84.  4,  14,  3  admissarius  tamen  asinus  sit  huiusmodi  corpore  amplo, 

solido,  musculoso,  strictis  et  fortibus  membris, 
nigri  vel  murini  maxime  coloris  aut  rubei,  qui. 


^5-   7>   7»    7  apes  recti oribus   cruribus,   neque  grandibus   pennif, 

pulchri  coloris  et  nitidi. 

2>6.    8,  4,  2  arietem     .     .     ventre  promisso  et  lanis  candidis  tecto, 

Cauda  longissima,  velleris  densi,  fronte  lata 
magnis  testibus  aetatis  trimae. 

%j,    12,    13,    7  caper  eligendus     .     .     .     magni  corporis,   crassis 

cruribus,  brevi  plenaque  cervice,  auribus  flexis  et 
gravibus,  parvo  capite  nitido  spisso  et  longo 
capillo. 

88.   12,    13,    7  capella   similis    corporis  sed  magnis  uberibus  est 

legenda. 

In  the  face  of  forma  altissima,  corporis  longi  uteri  capacis  et 
magni,  alta  fronte  (No.  82)  and  of  magnis  auribus,  latae  frontis  et 
crispi  (No.  80)  it  is  not  clear  that  Palladius  felt  any  subjective  dis- 
tinction between  the  relation  of  Ablative  and  of  Genitive  to  their 
subjects.  It  appears  also  from  solidi  corporis  and  corporis  longi 
that  this  Genitive  expresses  here  the  literal  body  as  well  as  bodily 
size,  which  we  saw  distinguished  by  Nepos;  Dat.  3,  1. 

Nor  is  corporis  used  here  in  the  Ablative  after  the  analogy  of  the 
bodily  parts,  as  so  often  by  Pliny,  as  noted  on  page  42.  Now  ap- 
pears, too,  similis  in  the  Genitive  (No.  88),  an  example  of  which 
for  an  earlier  time  would  be  hard  to  cite.  Palladius  even  departs 
so  far  from  the  usage  of  earlier  times  as  to  use  the  Genitive  speciei, 
3>  9)  3  uvas  pulchrae  speciei,  discussed  under  No.  15. 

If  earlier  distinctions  have  disappeared,  does  Palladius  ob- 
serve new  ones  or  forsake  all  ?  The  answer  with  regard  to  his  Ab- 
latives has  been  hinted  at  already.  They  scarcely  extend  beyond  ex- 
pressions of  the  bodily  parts,  phrases  like  crassitudine  digiti,  and 
plurals.  Observe  that  in  the  ten  examples  here  cited  every  Ablative 
is  for  a  part  of  the  body  except  in  No.  84,  where  corpore  is  for  the 
body  itself. 

Concerning  Palladius'  Genitives  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  out 
of  109  instances,  ^"j  are  of  the  termination -oris,  mostly  liquid  stems 
of  the  3d  declension  though  including  corporis.  Considering  the  large 
number  in  modi  and  phrases  of  measure,  such  as  decem  pedum,  this 
is  a  very  great  proportion  ;  far  greater  than  any  other  author  shows. 


82 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


ABLATIVE    AND   GENITIVE   OF   QUALITY. 


83 


The  suggestion  readily  arises  that  Palladius  felt  for  this  form  a  spe- 
cial inclination.  This  suggestion  is  strengthened  by  the  occurrence 
in  the  Genitive  of  Quality  of  adjectives  likewise  of  this  form;  maioris 
and  tenerioris  more  than  a  dozen  times. 

The  use  of  the  Genitive  for  abstract  qualities  is  regular,  so,  mag- 
nitudinis,  soliditatis,  qualitatis,  infelicitatis,  fecunditatis. 

Remarkable  is  that  while  Ablatives  are  almost  limited  to  parts  of 
the  body,  parts  of  the  body  are  not  limited  to  the  Ablative.  Thus 
we  have  3,  9,  2  grani  tenerioris  et  umidi  and  3,  9,  3  grani  callosi  et 
siccioris  et  cutis  tenerioris,  beside  3,  8,  4  grano  breviore  ;  4,  13,  4 
magni  ventris,  beside  4,  1 1,  2  ventre  non  parvo  ;  4,  11,4  ventre  sub- 
stricto,  8,  4,  2  ventre  promisso ;  3,  26,  i  longi  lateris  and  4,  9,  14 
soluti  lateris,  beside  4,  n,  2  lateribus  ;  and  4,  n  2  latae  frontis, 
beside  4,  n,  5  alta  fronte  and  8,  4,  2  fronte  lata. 

Returning  now  to  the  instances  in  hand  it  is  noteworthy  that  of 
sixteen  Genitives  involved,  nine  are  in  -oris,  namely,  coloris,  invari- 
able in  Palladius  in  the  Genitive,  and  corporis,  also  in  the  Genitive, 
with  one  exception,  4,  13,  3,  where  it  is  in  a  phrase  rhetorically  con- 
trasted with  a  Genitive  huiusmodi. 

Huiusmodi  is  invariable. 

Of  the  other  six  Genitives  three  are  of  aetatis,  where  it  defines 
a  class  to  which  the  subject  belongs.  The  remaining  three  are  con- 
trary to  rule.  Uteri  capacis  (No.  82)  may  be  owing  to  attraction  to 
the  case  of  the  preceding  Genitive. 

Next  come  the  Scriptores  Physiognomici,  of  whom  the  most  im- 
portant is  Polemo,  whose  usage  is  in  general  comparable  to  that  of 
Palladius.  Parts  of  the  body  he  puts  in  the  Ablative  ;  many  of 
them  are  in  the  plural.  Otherwise  the  Genitive  is  common.  But 
Polemo  has  Genitives  in  the  plural,  and  even  the  rhyme  -orum, 
-orum,  though  that  seems  chiefly  to  occur  in  the  case  of  morum. 

89.  Scr.  Phys.  Polemo,  p.  188,  21  (Foerst.)  serpens   pavida   fugax 

saepe  familiaris   celeri  mutabilitate  deterioris  in- 
dolis. 


9a 


91, 


338,  15  nigros  crispis  capillis  augustis  talis  oculis 
stibini  coloris  nigris  capillis. 

272,  3  vir  .   .   albi    coloris    rubro    mixti,    capillo 
•implice  .  .  moderata  statura  lateribus  gravibus, 


.  .  brachiis  plenis  .  .  facie  magna  non  acuta 
tenui  came  nee  magna  oculis  umidis  et  charopis 
et  laetitia  perfusis. 

By  the  side  of  Polemo  we  find  in  our  Codices  an  anonymous 
writer,  who  furnishes  us  the  following  examples  : 

92.   Phys.  Anon.   (Vol.   II.,   F.)  4,    5  tolerans  laborum  est,   vocis 

solidse  aliquanto  raucioris  .  .  passibus  longis 


93- 


94< 


95. 


96. 


97. 


98. 


4,  92  Ingenuosus  esse  .  .  coloris  albi  .  .  capillo 
flavo  .  .  corpore  recto,  membris  magnis  articulis 
discretis,  came  moderata,  aliquanto  molliore  .  . 

4,  94  Impudens  .  .  debet;  oculis  patentibus  lucidis  .  , 
crassis  pedibus  et  manibus  .  .  rubicundus  colore, 
vocis  acutae  [acute  vocis  A]. 

4,  107  vocem  infirmi  potius,spiritus  ||  spiritus  om.  Mo.  || 
quam  expressam  et  claram  habet,  .  .  oculis  erit 
non  perlucidis. 

4,  no  ;/A.a^i^/>oz?  membris  esse  debet  .  .  coloris 
albi,  nitidis  oculis  naribus  ex  superiore  parte  ten- 
uioribus. 

4,  124  erunt  parvi.  cavis  oculis  malae  barbae,  brevibus 
cervicibus,  parvorum  oculorum,  rugosi  vultus,  .  . 

4,  130  clamosum,  femininae  vocis  .  .  non  indecori 
corpore,  capite  prope  rotundo,  speciosis  oculis, 
cervice  procera,  incessu  pulchri. 


The  style  of  our  Anonymous  differs  from  that  of  Polemo,  in  having 
fewer  Genitives,  but  we  find  some  which  do  not  appear  in  Polemo; 
for  instance,  speciei  and  parts  of  the  body  in  the  Genitive,  such  as, 
4,  123  erunt  acuti  vultus,  proscissi  oris,  longi  corporis,  acutae  naris, 
oculorum  eminentium. 

In  the  seven  examples  from  Anonymous  before  us  the  Ablatives 
are  all  corporeal.  In  five  the  Genitives  are  coloris  and  vocis,  neither 
of  which  the  writer  uses  consistently.     Thus  compare  colore  in  4, 


I 


i\ 


84 


ABLATIVE    AND   GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


91;  105;  106  with  colons  in  4,  24;  26;  27;  107,  and  no;  and  voce  in 
4,  91;  98;  102  and  119,  with  vocis  in  4,  5,  94;   119,  and  130. 

In  No.  97  complete  insensibility  to  all  distinctions  appears.  Bar- 
bae was  never  before  in  the  Genitive;  rugosi  vultus  is  decidedly  rare 
and  parvorum  oculorum  adds  the  oifense  of  the  rhyme  to  the  irregu- 
larity of  the  Genitive  plural  for  bodily  parts;  and  that,  too,  after  cavis 
oculis  in  the  same  sentence. 

99.  Pseudo  Polemon.  5  A  14  cuius  spina  dorsi  aequa    media)  magni- 

tudine  est,  fortis  animi  est. 

With  Pseudo  Polemo  the  Genitive  is  the  more  usual,  especially  of 
animi  cf.  5  A  7;  8;  14  (thrice).  The  rarity  of  aequus,  sequa,  has  been 
noted  already,  page  29. 

100.  Bart,  de  Mess.   (Foerst)  39,   9  qui  est   albi  coloris   et  pilosus, 

rectis  capillis  et  grossis  ||  rectus  F,  grossus  F  ||  et 
nigir   ||  durus  in  F.,  ^/om.  R  ||. 

With  Bartholomaeus,  the  latest  of  the  Scriptores  Physiognomic!,  the 
decay  of  early  distinctions  between  Ablative  and  Genitive  seems  com- 
plete, the  Ablative  losing  its  function  of  expressing  parts  of  the  body, 
cf.  49,  4  minoris  capitis;  35,  13  boni  menti;  which  appear  only  in  the 
Genitive,  even  in  plurals,  cf.  21,  2  durorum  pilorum;  49,4  parvarum 
costarum.  The  Genitive  of  nouns  of  the  fifth  declension  is  no  longer 
avoided,  cf.  41,  8  obscurae  faciei;  49,  4  augustioris  faciei,  nor  is  the 
rhyme  -orum  -orum,  cf.  37,  6  parvorum  membrorum  et  parvorum  ar- 
ticulorum,  macer  et  parvorum  oculorum  et  parvse  faciei. 

If  Foerster's  reading  is  correct  in  our  example  100,  then  it  stands 
alone  as  having  the  only  Ablative  of  Quality  used  by  Bartholomaeus. 
The  reading  of  the  nominatives  rectus,  grossus  and  durus,  with  F, 
would  find  support  in  the  analogy  of  35,  7  facie  remissus,  and  may  be 
correct. 

This  brings  us  to  the  end  of  our  chapter.  If  the  evidence  accu- 
mulated does  not  give  us  a  simple  solution  to  all  the  questions  raised 
over  our  constructions,  it  does,  at  least,  afford  abundant  illustration 
to  those  views,  with  the  expression  of  which  this  chapter  was  begun. 


) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


In  addition  to  the  complete  grammars  of  Kriiger,  Zumpt,  Madvig, 
Kiihner  and  Roby;  Draeger's  Historische  Syntax;  the  Landgraf- 
Schmalz  edition  of  Reisig-Haase;  Schmalz's  Grammatik  in  Miiller's 
Handbuch;  Neue's  Formenlehre;  Nagelsbach's  Stilistik;  Keil's  Gram- 
matici  Latini;  the  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  and  the  German 
and  American  school  grammars,  special  mention  is  due  the  following 
works: 


Bell,  An  dr. 
-Ebrard,  Guil. 

Holtze,  F.  W. 

Loch,  Edw. 

Schaaf,  Albin. 
Heinrichs. 

Liebig. 

Holtze,  F.  W. 
Fischer,  Fr.  A. 

Lupus,  Bernh. 

Badstiibner. 

Christ. 
Gorlitz. 
Laws,  A. 
Antoine,  F. 
Kern,  H. 
Ebeling. 


ON    SPECIAL  AUTHORS- 

De   Locativi    in    prisca  Latinitate  vi   et    Usu. 

Breslau,  1889. 
De  Ablativi  Locativi  Instrumentalis  apud  Priscos 

Scriptores  Latinos    Usu.      Leipzig,  Teub. 

1879. 
Syntaxis     Priscorum    Scriptorum     Latinorum. 

Leipzig,  1 86 1. 
De   Genetivi   apud    Priscos  Scriptores   Latinos 

Usu.     Progr.   Bartenstein,  1880. 
De  Genetivi  Usu  Plautino.     Diss.  Halle,  1881. 
De  Ablativi  apud  Terentium  Usu  et  Ratione. 

Elbingae,  1859. 
De  Genetivi  Usu  Terentiano.     Oels,  1853. 
Syntaxis  Lucretianae  Lineamena.    Leipzig,  1868. 
Th.   Die  Rectionslehre  bei  Caesar.     (Two  programs) 

Halle,  1853-4. 
Der    Sprachgebrauch     des    Cornelius    Nepos. 

Berlin,  Weidm.      1876. 
De  Sallusti  Dicendi  Genere  Commentatio.   Prog. 

Berl.,   1863. 
De  Ablativo  Sallustiano,  Diss.     Jena.,  1883. 
De  Genetivi  Usu  Sallustiano.     Schrimm,  1878. 
De  Dicendi  Genere  Sallustiano.     Rossel,  1864 
De  Casuum  Syntax!  Vergiliana.    Paris,  1882. 
Der  Ablativ  bei  Vergil.     Schweinfurt,  1881. 
De  Casuum   Usu  Horatiano.     Werningerodae, 

1866. 


J 


86 

Kleine. 
Kiihnast,  L. 

Riemann,  O. 

Lange. 

Miiller,  Joh. 

Draeger,  A. 

Gantrelle,  J. 
Kugera,  E. 

Schneider. 

Zernial,  U. 

Lessing,  K. 

Benesch,  J. 

Lease,  E.  B. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF  QUALITY. 

De  Genetivi  Usu  Liviano.     Cleve.,  1865. 

Die  Hauptpunkte  der  Livianischen  Syntax.  Ber- 
lin, 1872. 

Etudes  sur  la  langue  et  la  Grammaire  de  Tite 
Live.     Paris,  1884. 

Zum  Sprachgebrauch  des  Velleius  Paterculus. 
Putbus,  1878. 

Der  Stil  des  Aelteren  Plinius.  Innsbruck, 
1883. 

Ueber   Syntax   und  Stil  des  Tacitus.     Leipzig, 

1874. 
Grammaire  et  Style  de  TacJte.     Paris,  1874. 
Ueber  die  Taciteische  Inconcinnitat.     Olmiitz, 

1882. 
Quaestiones  de  Ablativi  Usu  Taciteo.     Breslau, 

1882. 
Selecta  Capita  ex  Genetivi  Usu  Taciteo.     Got- 

tingen,  1864. 
Studien  zu  den  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae. 

Berlin.  1889. 
De  Casuum  Obliquorum  apud  Justinum,   etc. 

Vienna,  i88y. 
Syntactic,  Stylistic  and   Metrical  Study  of  Pru- 

dentius.     Baltimore,  1895. 


ABLATIVE    AND    GENITIVE    OF   QUALITY. 


87 


Aubert,  L.  C.  M. 
Bach. 

Bennett,  C.  E. 
Brenous,  J. 
Deecke,  W. 
Delbruck,  B. 


GENERAL  WORKS. 

Beitrage  zur  Lateinischen  Grammatik.     Chris- 

tiania,  1856. 
Die  Lehre   vom    Gebrauch  der   Kasus  in   der 

Lateinischen  Dichtersprache.    Gotha,  1848. 

Appendix  to  Bennett's  Latin  Grammar.  Bos- 
ton, 1895. 

Etude    sur  les   Hell6n  dans    la  Syntaxe 

latineP  aris,  189. 

Erlauterungen  zur  Lateinischen  Schulgramma- 
tik.     Berlin,  1892. 

Ablativ,  localis,  instrumentalis  im  Altindischen, 
etc.     Berlin,  1867. 


( 


Delbruck,  B. 


Egbert,  J.  C. 


Grundriss  der  vergleichenden  Grammatik  der- 
indogermanischen  Sprachen.  Strassburg, 
1897. 

Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Latin  Inscriptions. 
New  York,  1896. 
Hiibner,  E.  W.  E.      Grundriss  zur  Vorlesungen,  etc     Berlin,  1889. 
Hiibschman,  J.  H.     Zur  Casuslehre.     Miinchen,  1875. 

The  Latin  Language.     Oxford,  1895. 

Dialectorum  Italicarum  Exempla.  Leipzig, 
1886. 

Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des  Lateinischen  Abla- 
tive.    Leipzig,  1892. 


Lindsay,  W. 
Schneider,  E. 

Zeiler,  G. 


•Golling,  J. 


-Stegmann,  C. 


W6efflin,  E. 


PERIODICAL  LITERATURE. 

Zur  Lehre  vom  Ablativ  und  Genetiv  der  Eigen- 
schaft.  Gymnasium  Vol.  6.  pp.  2  ff.,  42 
ff.  Paderborn,  1888. 
^  Zur  Lateinischen  Schulgrammatik,  Neue  Jahrb., 
f.  Philologie.  Vols.  132,  pp.  243-7  and 
136,  p.  265-9.     Leipzig,  1885. 

Der  Genetiv  des  Wertes  und  der  Ablativ  des 
Preises.  Archiv.  Vol.  9,  pp.  101-8.  Miin- 
chen, 1896. 

Jahresberichte,  Philologus.  Vol.  25,  pp.  122, 
27,  124.     Goitingen,  1867. 


Fiigner,  Franc, 
Guerber  u.  Greef. 

Merguet,  H. 
Meusel.  H. 


SPECIAL   LEXICONS. 

Lexicon  Livianum  (A —    ).     Leipzig,  1894 — 
Lexicon  Taciteum.     Leipzig,  1897. 

Lexicon  zu  Cicero's  Philosophischen  Schriften. 
Jena,  1887-94. 
Lexicon  zu  Cicero's  Reden.     Jena,  1877-84. 
Lexicon  Caesarianum.     Berlin,  1893. 


Segebade  et  Lommatsch.     Lexicon  Petroninam.     Leipzig,  1898. 


VITA. 


89 


VITA* 

I,  George  Vail  Edwards,  was  born  at  Riverhead,  N.  Y.,  on  Novem- 
ber 17,  1868.  My  father,  Jeremiah  M.  Edwards,  was  a  native  of 
Sayville,  L.  I.,  and  my  mother,  Susan  Vail,  a  native  of  Riverhead. 
After  attending  the  public  school  in  Riverhead  until  1884,  I  went  in 
the  following  year  to  Franklinville  Academy,  to  begin  under  Professor 
Joseph  M.  Belford  my  preparation  for  college.  Entering  Hamilton 
College  with  the  Class  of  1891,  I  graduated  after  four  years  with 
honors,  receiving  the  degree  A.  B.  With  the  purpose  of  becoming  a 
teacher  of  Latin  I  entered  immediately  upon  post-graduate  studies  at 
Cornell  University,  following  courses  in  Latin  under  Professors  Hale 
and  Elmer  ;  in  Sanskrit  under  Professor  Bristol ;  in  Archaeology  under 
Professor  Emerson,  and  in  Roman  Life  and  Comparative  Grammar 
under  Professor  B.  L  Wheeler,  my  chief  adviser  being  Professor 
Hale.  In  the  next  year  I  went  to  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and 
there  for  two  years  pursued  the  work  in  Latin,  Sanskrit  and  Greek, 
under  Professors  Warren,  Bloomfield,  Gildersleeve,  Smith,  Miller  and 
Gudeman,  the  most  attention  being  devoted  to  the  work  of  the  Latin 
Seminary  and  the  Sanskrit  Seminary,  Professor  Warren  being  my  chief 
adviser.  In  the  fall  of  1894,  before  my  work  at  the  Johns  Hopkins 
was  completed,  I  accepted  a  call  to  the  new  post  ot  Instructor  in 
Latin  at  Union  College,  where  I  remained  three  years,  taking  charge 
of  all  the  work  of  the  Latin  Department  in  1895-96,  during  the 
absence  of  my  superior,  Professor  Ashmore.  In  the  summer  of  1897 
I  determined  to  resume  my  studies  and  went  to  Germany.  Two 
semesters  were  spent  in  the  University  of  Munich  in  the  closest  touch 
with  Professor  Edward  Woliflin  who,  with  the  greatest  kindness,  in 
his  own  study  furnished  me  constantly  with  exceptional  advantages  for 
the  prosecution  of  my  own  work.  There  was  carried  forward  the 
present  investigation  of  the  qualitatis  constructions,  which  had  been 
begun,  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Warren,  before  I   left  the  Johns 


S"*^ 


Hopkins.  In  Munich,  also,  I  heard  the  University  lectures  of  Profes- 
sors Wolflflin,  Iwan  Miiller,  Kuhn,  Furtwangler  and  Christ.  In  the 
fall  of  1898  I  traveled  in  Italy,  spending  two  months  in  Rome  and 
hearing  the  lectures  of  Professors  Peck,  Merrill  and  Norton  of  the 
American  School  of  Classical  Studies.  In  the  spring  of  1 899  I  went 
again  to  Baltimore  and  received  in  June  from  the  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity the  degree  of  Ph.  D.,  for  which  the  present  dissertation  was  sub- 
mitted. The  final  revision  of  the  manuscript  for  the  press  has  been 
made  during  the  winter  and  spring  of  1900  chiefly  at  the  Library  of 
Columbia  University,  to  whose  staff  I  acknowledge  indebtedness  for 
many  courtesies. 


